Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122241532
label
[01/06/2000 – 01/07/2000]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122241532
contentType
document
title
[01/06/2000 – 01/07/2000]
citationUrl
collections
Presidential Electronic Mail from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS)
Automated Records Management System (ARMS) Email from the Office of Policy Development (OPD) Bucket
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122241532
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-26444780-20150017F-Seg2-004-004-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
71cf807ee664133e
ocrText
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Wyatt, Lance" <[email protected]> ("Wyatt, Lance" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
))
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 10:50:14.00
SUBJECT: RE: what would Chilcoat say?
TO: John B. Buxton (CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
also in the Wash. Post today is an article describing Richard Holebrook's
Africa trip and the need for attention to the AIDS Epidemic; January is the
Month of Africa in the U.S
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:16 AM
To: 'Ariel Zwang'; 'Barry Price'; 'Chris Moore';
[email protected]; 'Esther Benjamin'; 'Gary Hall';
[email protected]; [email protected]; 'Juan
Garcia'; 'Khalid Azim'; Wyatt, Lance; 'Melissa Goldstein'; 'Peter
Najera'; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Tim Wu'
Subject: what would Chilcoat say?
You may have seen last night or in the NYT today:
Both Democrats Endorse Gays in the Military
Al Gore and Bill Bradley said that if they were elected
president they would require their appointees to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to fully support allowing homosexuals to
serve openly in the military.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/010600wh-den.html
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: John B. Buxton (CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 14:57:36.00
SUBJECT: debate and the military 2
TO: "Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> ("Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Pete Najera <[email protected]> ( Pete Najera <[email protected]> @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Garcia, Juan" <[email protected]> ("Garcia, Juan" <[email protected]> @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
A little more context on the gays in the military comments from last
night. Pete, I think you
will appreciate Bradley's answer--at least part of it.
The two candidates agreed on the need for stricter gun control
laws and on letting gays serve in the military.
But Gore went
further, saying he would not appoint anyone to
the Joint Chiefs
of Staff who disagreed with his position on
homosexuals in the
armed forces.
Bradley suggested he would not need to resort to
any such
litmus test: "When you're president, you are
commander-in-chief and you issue orders. And
soldiers are
good soldiers. And they follow your orders
whatever the
policy is."
But President Clinton said today that changing
the policy would
not be that simple, noting that Congress had
voted by a
veto-proof majority not to allow homosexuals to
serve openly
in the military.
"The Congress would have to change the law,"
Clinton said
outside the new home his wife and he had bought
in
Chappaqua, N.Y. ``I don't think the military and
the president
have the authority to do it."
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Ingrid Duran <[email protected]> ( Ingrid Duran <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 17:05:21.00
SUBJECT: FW: Millennium March on Washington Working To Increase The Power of the Gay Vote
TO: Juan Herrera <[email protected]> (Juan Herrera <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Susana Mercado (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Susana Mercado (E-mail)"
<[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Richard Rugnao (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Richard Rugnao (E-mail)"
<[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Marisa Demeo (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Marisa Demeo (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Margaret Oconnor (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Margaret Oconnor (E-mail)"
<[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Julio Abreu (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Julio Abreu (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Juan Lopez (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Juan Lopez (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Henry L. Fernandez (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Henry L. Fernandez (E-mail)"
<[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Gina Mooers (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Gina Mooers (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel C. Montoya (CN=Daniel C. Montoya/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Cindy Mendoza (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Cindy Mendoza (E-mail)"
<[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Virginia Paris (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Virginia Paris (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Scott Foval (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Scott Foval (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Orlando Reyes (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Orlando Reyes (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Mario Solis Marich (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Mario Solis Marich (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Kim Avila (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Kim Avila (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Julia Cavazos (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Julia Cavazos (E-mail)"
<[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Joy (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Joy (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Guillermo J. Serritiello [[email protected]] (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Guillermo J.
Serritiello [[email protected]] (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Deb Troell (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Deb Troell (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Arturo Vargas (E-mail)" <[email protected]> ("Arturo Vargas (E-mail)" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ]
)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Happy New Year!
Hi all- just wanted to keep you abreast of the what the MMOW is doing
I hope that each and everyone of you will be participating in the march
in April.
Ingrid M. Duran
Executive Director
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
504 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 543-1771
(202) 546-2143 fax
mailto:[email protected]]
www.chci.org
V
Original Message
>
From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 5:31 PM
> To:
[email protected]
V
Subject:
Millennium March on Washington Working To Increase The
> Power of the Gay Vote
>
>
>
> NEWS FROM THE MILLENNIUM MARCH ON WASHINGTON
> 1000 16th St., NW, Ste. 300
> Washington, DC 20036
> (202) 467-8100
> www.mmow.org
>
> ***
> Contact: Corri Planck, Communications Director
> (202) 467-8108 (office)
> (202) 257-2318 (cell)
>
>
>
>
MILLENNIUM MARCH ON WASHINGTON WORKING TO INCREASE THE POWER OF THE
>
GAY VOTE
>
>
GLBT Vote 2000 Will Energize An Important Voting Bloc
>
>
WASHINGTON, DC, Dec. 14, 1999 A front page story in today's
> Washington
> Post regarding Vice-President Al Gore's stance on the "Don't Ask,
> Don't Tell"
> policy regarding gays in the military refers to the increasing
> importance
> of the gay vote "
>
Recognizing this increasing importance, organizers of the
> Millennium
> March on Washington for Equality have created "GLBT Vote 2000," a
> campaign
> designed to increase voter registration, education and empowerment
> among the
>
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
>
"Our community has an historic opportunity to march on Washington
> and
> send a powerful message to our nation, but that opportunity doesn't
> end in
>
Washington, DC. We have a responsibility to register, become informed
> and
> turn out for the 2000 elections," said Dianne Hardy-Garcia,
> co-executive
> director of the Millennium March on Washington. "It's not just about a
>
V
presidential race, but about electing a Congress that will protect us
V
as full
V
citizens. It's also vitally important for our community to be educated
> about
> the candidates for state and local offices that are so crucial to our
> everyday lives. One of the major goals of the Millennium March on
V
Washington
V
for Equality is to orchestrate the largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and
>
transgender voter turnout in history."
>
More than 100,000 pledge cards have been distributed across the
> country
> as part of the Millennium March's GLBT Vote 2000 efforts to motivate
> gay,
> lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to vote in the 2000
> elections. On
>
the cards, GLBT voters sign a pledge that reads, "I will be part of
> the
>
largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender voter turnout in
>
history. I
> pledge to vote in the 2000 elections and to encourage my friends and
> family
> to join in that effort."
>
"The African-American and Latino communities, labor and even the
> Christian Coalition, are making serious commitments toward voter
> registration
> and turnout. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community must
> also
> step up to the plate," said Nicole Murray-Ramirez, board co-chair of
> the
> Millennium March on Washington. "At all levels, these elections are
> important
> for our community -- from the next president of the United States, who
> will
> appoint more Supreme Court justices, to our local school boards, who
> will
> make decisions affecting our youth about curriculum and gay student
> groups.
> This is a non-partisan effort, and we envision and hope that the GLBT
> Vote
> will continue long after the March on Washington."
>
For more information, or to obtain pledge cards, about GLBT Vote
> 2000,
> call the office of the Millennium March on Washington at (202)
> 467-8100.
V
The Millennium March on Washington, scheduled for April 30, 2000,
> is the
> fourth national GLBT civil rights march and the first human rights
> march of
> the new millennium. For more information on the March on Washington
> for
> Equality, visit the official website at www.mmow.org or write to
> [email protected].
>
> -30-
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO D
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 13:46:19.00
SUBJECT: Revised Pool Report #1, Morning in Chappaqua
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@inet ( [[email protected]@inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: S [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [[email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: James R. Fallin ( CN=James R. Fallin/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP[ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Anne M. Edwards ( CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Mark J. Bernstein ( CN=Mark J. Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Matt Gobush ( CN=Matt Gobush/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Natalie S. Wozniak (CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Michael A. Hammer (CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Gilbert S. Gonzalez (CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Karen C. Burchard ( CN=Karen C. Burchard/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Dorinda A. Salcido (CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Heather M. Riley (CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Julia M. Payne (CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Pool Report #1
Morning in Chappaqua
January 6, 2000
Your pool staked out Old House Road for much of the morning. At 10:30 am
a potted plant from Loving Moments florists in Hawthorne, NY arrived at
the house. At 11:25 am, the first couple emerged from the columned porch
on the left rear of the white shingled colonial -- stepping slowly down
the steps toward the pool cameras. After exchanging a few pleasantries,
they turned walk hand in hand down the pebbled drive way toward a gaggle
of about 30 reporters, camera men, and crew members. POTUS wore a dark
brown leather jacket, a black open necked polo shirt and gray tee-shirt.
FLOTUS wore a yellow nylon jacket (pool apologizes profusely for thinking
it was suede last night), yellow scarf, and tan leather gloves.
As FLOTUS spoke, POTUS placed his arm around her shoulder and gazed
lovingly though he later removed it. POTUS acknowledged that he would
register to vote in New York in time for FLOTUS , senate bid "I want to
make sure my vote counts." They said they spent the night unpacking
boxes, deciding where to place the furniture, where to hang paintings, and
listening to a hand cranked, solar powered South African Radio. They told
us they had no television, they did not watch the democratic debate
(although POTUS said he had asked for the debate to taped and would play
it back later), though they said they were awake past I AM.
Both ducked a question about the use of soft money in the New York Senate
campaign, with FLOTUS saying they were there to talk about the house. But
POTUS did speak at length about Don ,t ask Don ,t tell policy of gays in the
military.
POTUS denied having entertained a job offer from Lazard-Freres -- saying
he was amazed by such a suggestion. At 11:35 am after 10 minutes of
question, they returned to the house. (transcript should be coming
later.)
The motorcade to Westchester County airport made one unannounced stop at
the Chappaqua fire department on the edge of town creating quite a stir
among volunteer fire fighters and a throng of well-wishers and new
neighbors. POTUS and FLOTUS shook hands with neighbors who welcomed them
to Chappaqua. "Thank you for coming, you ,re so beautiful," gushed Grace
Bucolo of Ovington, a book keeper at the Chappaqua Grand Union. Susan
Solomon of York Town NY crowded FLOTUS holding a sign that said "Hillary
is a cutie, Rudie is a doody."
POTUS greeted George Anderson, asking him "what are you hunting" and
Anderson replied "deer." After some minutes POTUS shouted, "Come on
Hillary, we ,re late." But FLOTUS proceeded across the street to a mobile
station where a sign read welcome Bill and Hillary. After chatting for
some time with a road crew at the gas station, POTUS and FLOTUS rejoined
the motorcade for an uneventful ride back to the airport.
Jonathan Weissman
Baltimore Sun
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> ("Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 10:24:18.00
SUBJECT: RE: what would Chilcoat say?
TO: John B. Buxton (CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
As Samuel Huntington describes in Soldier and the State, Chilcoat would
salute and execute the orders of his civil master. Of note, I am certain
that the political utterances of the "candidates" would not be so absolute
once the next president is elected. The experiment continues.
BLP
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:16 AM
To: 'Ariel Zwang'; 'Barry Price'; 'Chris Moore';
[email protected]; 'Esther Benjamin'; 'Gary Hall';
[email protected]; [email protected]; 'Juan
Garcia'; 'Khalid Azim'; 'Lance Wyatt'; 'Melissa Goldstein'; 'Peter
Najera'; [email protected]; [email protected]; "Tim Wu'
Subject: what would Chilcoat say?
You may have seen last night or in the NYT today:
Both Democrats Endorse Gays in the Military
Al Gore and Bill Bradley said that if they were elected
president they would require their appointees to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to fully support allowing homosexuals to
serve openly in the military.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/010600wh-dem.html
-- E-Mail scanned for viruses. --
-- E-Mail scanned for viruses. --
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> ("Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 15:48:28.00
SUBJECT: RE: debate and the military 2
TO: "Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> ("Price, Barrye" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John B. Buxton (CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Pete Najera <[email protected]> (Pete Najera <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Garcia, Juan" <[email protected]> ("Garcia, Juan" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
J.B.,
Well spoken by my Commander in Chief (CINC).
BLP
Original Message
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 2:58 PM
To: Garcia, Juan; Price, Barrye; Pete Najera
Subject: debate and the military 2
A little more context on the gays in the military comments from last night.
Pete, I think you
will appreciate Bradley's answer--at least part of it.
The two candidates agreed on the need for stricter gun control
laws and on letting gays serve in the military.
But Gore went
further, saying he would not appoint anyone to
the Joint Chiefs
of Staff who disagreed with his position on
homosexuals in the
armed forces.
Bradley suggested he would not need to resort to
any such
litmus test: "When you're president, you are
commander-in-chief and you issue orders. And
soldiers are
good soldiers. And they follow your orders
whatever the
policy is."
But President Clinton said today that changing
the policy would
not be that simple, noting that Congress had
voted by a
veto-proof majority not to allow homosexuals to
serve openly
in the military.
The Congress would have to change the law,"
Clinton said
outside the new home his wife and he had bought
in
Chappaqua, N.Y. ``I don't think the military and
the president
have the authority to do it."
-- E-Mail scanned for viruses. --
-- E-Mail scanned for viruses. --
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: John B. Buxton (CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP [OPD])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 09:16:22.00
SUBJECT: what would Chilcoat say?
TO: Sonny Garg (CN=Sonny Garg/OU=OMB/O=EOP [OMB])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Reynaldo Valencia ( CN=Reynaldo Valencia/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Peter Najera" <[email protected]> ("Peter Najera" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Lance Wyatt" <[email protected]> (""Lance Wyatt" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Juan Garcia" <[email protected]> ("Juan Garcia" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jacqueline F. Lain ( CN=Jacqueline F. Lain/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Gary Hall" <[email protected]> ("Gary Hall" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel F. Feldman ( CN=Daniel F. Feldman/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Barry Price" <[email protected]> (""Barry Price" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Tim Wu" <[email protected]> ("Tim Wu" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Melissa Goldstein" <[email protected]> ("Melissa Goldstein"
<[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Khalid Azim" <[email protected]> (""Khalid Azim" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN ))
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John B. Buxton ( CN=John B. Buxton/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Esther Benjamin" <[email protected]> ("Esther Benjamin" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN
1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Chris Moore" <[email protected]> (""Chris Moore" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Ariel Zwang" <[email protected]> ("Ariel Zwang" <[email protected]> [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
You may have seen last night or in the NYT today:
Both Democrats Endorse Gays in the Military
Al Gore and Bill Bradley said that if they were elected
president they would require their appointees to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to fully support allowing homosexuals to
serve openly in the military.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/010600wh-dem.html
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Margaret M. Suntum ( CN=Margaret M. Suntum/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 14:57:27.00
SUBJECT: remarks of the President and Mrs. Clinton from their residence in Chappaqua, NY
TO: Jennifer 1. Hoelzer ( CN=Jennifer I. Hoelzer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eileen P. McCaughey ( CN=Eileen P. McCaughey/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Pamela P. Carpenter ( CN=Pamela P. Carpenter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather F. Hurlburt ( CN=Heather F. Hurlburt/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin G. Cooper ( CN=Justin G. Cooper/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lauren M. Supina ( CN=Lauren M. Supina/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Magana (CN=Mark D. Magana/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sonya N. Hebert ( CN=Sonya N. Hebert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher (CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Adrienne K. Elrod ( CN=Adrienne K. Elrod/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason E. Hartke ( CN=Jason E. Hartke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kymberly M. Escobar ( CN=Kymberly M. Escobar/OU=CEQ/O=EOP@EOP [ CEQ D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Samir Afridi ( CN=Samir Afridi/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Abigail L. McDermott ( CN=Abigail L. McDermott/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eric P. Liu ( CN=Eric P. Liu/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Fern Mechlowitz ( CN=Fern Mechlowitz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephanie A. Cutter ( CN=Stephanie A. Cutter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird ( CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez (CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Carolyn T. Wu ( CN=Carolyn T. Wu/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sally Katzen (CN=Sally Katzen/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Pub_Arch@EOP (Pub_Arch@EOP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Pub_Arch Pub_Arch @ oa.eop.gov@inet [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alberto O. Feraren ( CN=Alberto O. Feraren/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield (CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Debra S. Wood ( CN=Debra S. Wood/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Essence P. Washington ( CN=Essence P. Washington/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Janice H. Vranich (CN=Janice H. Vranich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June G. Turner (CN=June G. Turner/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Serena C. Torrey ( CN=Serena C. Torrey/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Tracy F. Sisser (CN=Tracy F. Sisser/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael J. Sullivan ( CN=Michael J. Sullivan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maria E. Soto (CN=Maria E. Soto/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark C. Sheppard (CN=Mark C. Sheppard/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher K. Scully ( CN=Christopher K. Scully/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: G. Timothy Saunders (CN=G. Timothy Saunders/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Evan Ryan (CN=Evan Ryan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland (CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Linda Ricci (CN=Linda Ricci/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected]. [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Denver R. Peacock ( CN=Denver R. Peacock/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nathan B. Naylor (CN=Nathan B. Naylor/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz (CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann F. Lewis (CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kris M Balderston (CN=Kris M Balderston/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jim Kohlenberger (CN=Jim Kohlenberger/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Catherine T. Kitchen (CN=Catherine T. Kitchen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David E. Kalbaugh (CN=David E. Kalbaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joel Johnson (CN=Joel Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David T. Johnson (CN=David T. Johnson/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sheyda Jahanbani ( CN=Sheyda Jahanbani/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Marty J. Hoffmann (CN=Marty J. Hoffmann/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William C. Haymes ( CN=William C. Haymes/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William Hadley ( CN=William Hadley/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [OA ]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Wendy E. Gray (CN=Wendy E. Gray/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer (CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul D. Glastris (CN=Paul D. Glastris/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachel E. Forde (CN=Rachel E. Forde/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Debra D. Bird ( CN=Debra D. Bird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel W. Burkhardt ( CN=Daniel W. Burkhardt/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elliot J. Diringer (CN=Elliot J. Diringer/OU=CEQ/O=EOP@EOP [ CEQ ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lynn G. Cutler ( CN=Lynn G. Cutler/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Delia A. Cohen ( CN=Delia A. Cohen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: George G. Caudill ( CN=George G. Caudill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich (CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP|
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barbara D. Woolley ( CN=Barbara D. Woolley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen C. Burchard ( CN=Karen C. Burchard/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Antony J. Blinken ( CN=Antony J. Blinken/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark J. Bernstein ( CN=Mark J. Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark H. Bartholomew (CN=Mark H. Bartholomew/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeannetta P. Allen ( CN=Jeannetta P. Allen/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kathleen K. Ahn ( CN=Kathleen K. Ahn/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brooke B. Livingston ( CN=Brooke B. Livingston/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara A. Silver ( CN=Mara A. Silver/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Angela Blake ( CN=Angela Blake/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean R. Dobson (CN=Sean R. Dobson/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Renee Sagiv (CN=Renee Sagiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Adrian E. Miller (CN=Adrian E. Miller/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Barreto (CN=Brian A. Barreto/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsay R. Drewel ( CN=Lindsay R. Drewel/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maureen A. Hudson ( CN=Maureen A. Hudson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ))
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez ( CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Deanne E. Benos ( CN=Deanne E. Benos/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Abigail C. Smith ( CN=Abigail C. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisel Loy ( CN=Lisel Loy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Debra D. Alexander ( CN=Debra D. Alexander/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia G. Bataille (CN=Julia G. Bataille/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Terry Edmonds ( CN=Terry Edmonds/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laurie P. Kelleher (CN=Laurie P. Kelleher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bridget T. Leininger ( CN=Bridget T. Leininger/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan ( CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anna Richter ( CN=Anna Richter/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Francisco J. Sanchez ( CN=Francisco J. Sanchez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison (CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles J. Payson (CN=Charles J. Payson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sharon H. Yuan ( CN=Sharon H. Yuan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachel A. Redington ( CN=Rachel A. Redington/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick M. Dorton ( CN=Patrick M. Dorton/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John H. Corcoran III (CN=John H. Corcoran II/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Releases ( Releases @ pub.pub.whitehouse.gov@inet [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Hildy Kuryk (CN=Hildy Kuryk/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gina N. Dennis (CN=Gina N. Dennis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak (CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Woyneab M. Wondwossen ( CN=Woyneab M. Wondwossen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robert S. Weiner ( CN=Robert S. Weiner/OU=ONDCP/O=EOP@EOP [ ONDCP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Setti D. Warren ( CN=Setti D. Warren/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Loretta M. Ucelli ( CN=Loretta M. Ucelli/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas M. Rosshirt ( CN=Thomas M. Rosshirt/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sylvia M. Mathews (CN=Sylvia M. Mathews/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dana C. Strand (CN=Dana C. Strand/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP I WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith ( CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leanne A. Shimabukuro ( CN=Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP. [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brooks E. Scoville ( CN=Brooks E. Scoville/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robert B. Johnson (CN=Robert B. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Peter Rundlet ( CN=Peter Rundlet/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole R. Rabner (CN=Nicole R. Rabner/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ellen E. Olcott (CN=Ellen E. Olcott/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Andrew J. Mayock ( CN=Andrew J. Mayock/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah S. Knight (CN=Sarah S. Knight/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Wayne C. Johnson ( CN=Wayne C. Johnson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP OA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy (CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John A. Gribben (CN=John A. Gribben/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dario J. Gomez (CN=Dario J. Gomez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Carmen B. Fowler (CN=Carmen B. Fowler/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Martha Foley (CN=Martha Foley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sharon Farmer ( CN=Sharon Farmer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jackson T. Dunn ( CN=Jackson T. Dunn/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lana Dickey (CN=Lana Dickey/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bradley M. Campbell ( CN=Bradley M. Campbell/OU=CEQ/O=EOP@EOP [ CEQ 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button (CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick E. Briggs ( CN=Patrick E. Briggs/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Todd A. Bledsoe ( CN=Todd A. Bledsoe/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein (CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen L. Barbuschak ( CN=Karen L. Barbuschak/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ralph Alswang (CN=Ralph Alswang/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Deborah Akel ( CN=Deborah Akel/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Margaret M. Suntum ( CN=Margaret M. Suntum/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian S. Mason (CN=Brian S. Mason/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 6, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE FIRST LADY
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVELING PRESS
Outside Chappaqua Residence
Chappaqua, New York
11:28 A.M. EST
MRS. CLINTON: Good morning!
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.
Q
So are you now officially New Yorkers?
THE PRESIDENT: We're here. Let me say to start that we're
delighted to be here. We like this house very much and we, at least, have
put up all the boxes we brought up here so far. This is the first home we
have had since January of 1983, 17 years ago, when we moved back into the
Governor's Mansion in Little Rock. So it's exciting. We're seeing some
things we haven't seen since we moved to the White House and some things
we haven't seen in 17 years.
We've got a table in there that we bought shortly after we got
married, in 1975, that we haven't used in a long time. So we've had a lot
of fun and I've enjoyed it very much.
MRS. CLINTON: We're glad to have you here this morning because
this is a lot of excitement and hard work for us, but we're so pleased
that we are finally here and moved in and looking forward to many, many
happy days here in the days and months ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: We also want to thank our neighbors who have been
long-suffering with all the attention --
MRS. CLINTON: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: that the house has received.
MRS. CLINTON: And all of the officials here in Chappaqua and New
Castle and Westchester County, who have been so helpful and cooperative
with the Secret Service and the other people who are a part of the
President's official duties.
Q
Mr. President, will you be shifting your voter
registration to New York, so you can vote for a certain Senate candidate?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next year, so I want to make sure my vote counts. I
expect to vote in the election in New York.
Q
What did you do last night? What did you do for dinner?
Did you have friends in?
MRS. CLINTON: We had friends -- we've had a lot of friends
helping us and one of my good friends here who lives nearby came over with
her son and brought dinner for us, and then her son helped Bill move some
things that needed to be moved. And we had other friends come over who
have been helping us. But mostly what we did was unpack boxes, put things
up, try to make decisions about where to hang paintings or move furniture
and make a long list of all the things we have to do that aren't done yet
that are going to have to be tended to.
Q
Are you going back to Washington today to do that?
MRS. CLINTON: Yes, we're going back today and we'll be packing up
more things and moving more things in the next couple of weeks. So it
will be a process. We're not going to be totally moved in and everything
in place for a while. But it's a lot of fun for us to be able to do this
again, for the first time in such a long time -- because we, of course,
worked very hard in the White House and spent an enormous amount of time
and effort trying to keep the White House in good shape and do some
additional work that needed to be done there, but it's different when
you're doing it in your own home.
Q
Have you thought any more about a schedule for how often
you will both be here?
Q
Mrs. Clinton and also Mr. President, the Mayor, as you
may have heard a couple of days ago, said that both of you, the Clintons,
he said, have been egregious violators of soft money, both in how it's
collected and how it's distributed. Your reaction, both of you?
MRS. CLINTON: We're going to talk about our house this morning,
which we are very happy about being in, and being New Yorkers. And we'll
leave that to another time.
Q
Mr. President, are you going to -- we haven't heard from
you. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.) No, I keep reading all these
things. I've not given very much thought to this. I'm going to work very
hard on finishing my library and center. And I'm going to devote all my
attention to being President. I've got a big agenda this year. We're
going back now, and I have to go back to Shepherdstown this afternoon.
But I've had no discussions with anybody about that kind of move. And I
was amazed to see that in the paper. No one's even suggested that.
Q
Mr. President, last night the Vice President in the
debates said that he'll ask military commanders about their feelings on
gays serving in the military before appointing people to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. Is this litmus test the way it should work?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the real problem is -- let me go
back to what happened, because, as you know, my view was -- and I will
restate my view. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits
homosexual contacts. So my view was, if someone was willing to take the
pledge to observe the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they shouldn't
have to lie about being gay and being in the military. Then, let me
remind you what happened. The Congress voted, by a veto-proof majority,
against that position. So that's how we got to "don't ask, don't tell."
My focus has been on trying to make the policy work the way the
military commanders said it would work back in 1993, which it has not been
doing. No one disputes that. To Secretary Cohen's credit, back in August
we announced some new guidelines, which have now been implemented, for
training and for implementation, which I think will significantly improve
the present situation over the next few months.
Now, the Vice President and Senator Bradley say they want to go
back to the position that I advocated in '92 and '93. In order to do
that, the Congress will have to change the law, I believe. I don't think
that the military and the President have the authority to do it. Now, you
could go back and look at the constitutional arguments and do some
research, but I think a lot of this debate, I think a lot of people have
actually forgotten that Congress put into the law the present policy.
And so what I'm going to do is spend the next year trying to make
sure that we do what was intended and what I announced would be done,
after extensive consultation with our commanders back in 1993. I believe
that the next President, if he wants to change the policy, will have to
get the Congress to change the law.
Q
A quick follow-up on that. Wouldn't litmus tests like
that have disqualified somebody like Colin Powell from serving as Joint
Chiefs?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that I'm going to leave the appointment
process to the next President. I'm not going to get involved in this
election right now. I think that there have been, we know, going back all
the way to the first world war, we have clear evidence that there have
been gays in the military who have served with great distinction. I think
it's quite interesting that most of the Vietnam veterans, combat veterans,
in the United States Congress, including Senator Robb and Senator Kerry,
just to mention two, have felt that -- both Senator Kerry and Kerrey, and
Senator Robb -- have felt that the policy ought to be changed and
supported my original position.
So I would like to find some way for people to be honest, to obey
the law, and to serve with distinction in the military. So I think that
is where our focus ought to be, and the next President will have to figure
out how to do that. But I think there will have to be a change in the
law.
Q
Mr. President, the polls show that your wife is trailing
right now. Do you have any advice for her?
MRS. CLINTON: Thank you so much.
Q
What was the first night like?
THE PRESIDENT: We had a wonderful time. We don't have a
television yet. (Laughter.)
So how did you watch the debate?
THE PRESIDENT: We didn't. They have a tape for me. I'm going to
watch it tonight when I get home. So I had a tape. So we brought up our
CD player, and I gave Hillary one of those South African radios that you
crank -- have you seen them?
MRS. CLINTON: Solar-powered radios.
THE PRESIDENT: We bought them -- and I got it in Washington at
that Discovery store. You crank it up and it's run either by solar power
or by hand crank, but you never need a plug or anything. So we listened
to the radio last night. It was quite wonderful.
Q -- what it was like being in the house for the first time
in 17 years, your own house?
- 5 -
MORE
- 5 -
MRS. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little overwhelming
because there is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late, working
on getting things organized and put away. And then we're going to be back
together next week and we'll keep the process going until we finally get
things moved in.
But it was wonderful having a chance to be here. My mother is
with us. We just had a great time.
Q
How late were you up?
MRS. CLINTON: Oh, gosh.
THE PRESIDENT: Past 1:00 a.m.
MRS. CLINTON: Past 1:00 a.m. (Laughter.) Thanks.
END
11:38 A.N. EST
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 13:01:08.00
SUBJECT: Pool Report #1, Morning in Chappaqua
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@inet ( [email protected]@inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]([email protected][ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [[email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [[email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: James R. Fallin ( CN=James R. Fallin/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Mark J. Bernstein ( CN=Mark J. Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Matt Gobush ( CN=Matt Gobush/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Gilbert S. Gonzalez ( CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Karen C. Burchard ( CN=Karen C. Burchard/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Megan C. Moloney (CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Pool Report #1
Morning in Chappaqua
January 6, 2000
Your pool staked out Old House Road for much of the morning. At 10:30 am
a potted plant from Loving Moments florists in Hawthorne, NY arrived at
the house. At 11:25 am, the first couple emerged from the columned porch
on the left rear of the white shingled colonial -- stepping slowly down
the steps toward the pool cameras. After exchanging a few pleasantries,
they turned walk hand in hand down the pebbled drive way toward a gaggle
of about 30 reporters, camera men, and crew members. POTUS wore a dark
brown leather jacket, a black open necked polo shirt and gray tee-shirt.
FLOTUS wore a yellow nylon jacket (pool apologizes profusely for thinking
it was suede last night), yellow scarf, and tan leather gloves.
As FLOTUS spoke, POTUS placed his arm around her shoulder and gazed
lovingly though he later removed it. POTUS acknowledged that he would
register to vote in New York in time for FLOTUS , senate bid "I want to
make sure my vote count." They said they spent the night unpacking boxes,
deciding where to place the furniture, where to hang paintings, and
listening to a hand cranked, solar powered South African Radio. They told
us they had no television, they did not watch the democratic debate
(although POTUS said he had asked for the debate to taped and would play
it back later), though they said they were awake past 1 AM.
Both ducked a question about the use of soft money in the New York Senate
campaign, with FLOTUS saying they were there to talk about the house. But
POTUS did speak at length about Don ,t ask Don ,t tell policy of
POTUS denied having entertained a job offer from Lazared-Freres -- saying
he was amazed by such a suggestion. At 11:35 am after 10 minutes of
question, they returned to the house. (transcript should be coming
later.)
The motorcade to Westchester County airport made one unannounced stop at
the Chappaqua fire department on the edge of town creating quite a stir
among volunteer fire fighters and a throng of well-wishers and new
neighbors. POTUS and FLOTUS shook hands with neighbors who welcomed them
to Chappaqua. "Thank you for coming, you ,re so beautiful," gushed Grace
Bucolo of Ovington, a book keeper at the Chappaqua Grand Union. Susan
Solomon of York Town, NY crowded FLOTUS holding a sign that said "Hillary
is a cutie, Rudie is a doody."
POTUS greeted George Anderson, asking him "what are you hunting" and
Anderson replied "deer." After some minutes POTUS shouted, "Come on
Hillary, we ,re late." But FLOTUS proceeded across the street to a mobile
station where a sign read welcome Bill and Hillary. After chatting for
some time with a road crew at the gas station, POTUS and FLOTUS rejoined
the motorcade for an uneventful ride back to the airport.
Jonathan Weissman
Baltimore Sun
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:04:08.00
SUBJECT: PBS NewsHour, January 6, 2000
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich ( (CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher ( CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez ( CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maura M. Pally (CN=Maura M. Pally/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith ( CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison ( CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP[ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa (CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine (CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol (CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li ( CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov (CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre (CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum (CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Scott Hynes ( CN=Scott Hynes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez (CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan ( (CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( (CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy (CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP OA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter ( CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine ( CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
PBS NewsHour
January 6, 2000
GAYS IN THE MILITARY
Margaret Warner discusses with four military
officers whether
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy for the
military, after a
background report.
Then, participate in an Online Forum on the
topic.
TOM BEARDEN: The
Pentagon's policy on gay
service is commonly called
"don't ask, don't tell," and has
been in effect since 1993. It
was the result of a hard-fought
compromise between President
Clinton, who had advocated allowing homosexuals to
serve openly, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress,
who opposed it. Congress passed a law rendering such
service illegal.
The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy says: "The
Department of Defense will not ask, nor will members be
required to reveal their sexual preference. Homosexual
orientation is a personal and private matter and will not
be
questioned during service. However, homosexual conduct
is not compatible with military service and will subject a
member to discharge from the armed forces."
Provoking the latest round of
political debate was the killing of
Army Private Barry Winchell at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, last
year, and the murder conviction
and sentencing of 18-year old
Private Calvin Glover last month.
Soon after, in New York, Senate candidate and First Lady
Hillary Clinton, speaking at a gay rights fund-raiser, said
the policy had not worked. A week later, her husband
agreed. In a radio interview, Mr. Clinton said the policy
was out of whack and, as implemented, does not work.
The issue was again raised at last night's presidential
campaign forum in New Hampshire.
PANELIST: If you become President will you nominate
members of the Joint Chiefs who only support your gay
policy? In other words, will it be a litmus test?
AL GORE: I would try to bring
about the kind of change in
policy on the "don't ask, don't
tell" policy that President Harry
Truman brought about after
World War II in integrating the
military. And I think that would require those who wanted
to serve on the position of on the Joint Chiefs, to be
in
agreement with that policy, so yes.
BILL BRADLEY: My sense is
that when you're President of
the United States, military
people are loyal to their
commander-in-chief, whatever
the policy is that the
commander-in-chief calls for for the country, and that's
what I expect them to do if I'm President of the United
States and we move toward gays in the military, which I
intend to do.
The President Comments
TOM BEARDEN: The President weighed in again today,
standing in front of the Clintons' new home in New York.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I
think a lot of people have
actually forgotten that Congress
put into the law the present
policy. And so what I'm going
to do is spend the next year
trying to make sure that we do
what was intended and what I
announced would be done after extensive consultation with
our commanders back in 1993. I believe that the next
president, if he wants to change the policy, will have to
get
the Congress to change the law.
TOM BEARDEN: Among
Republicans, George W.
Bush, John McCain and Steve
Forbes back the current
policy. Their more
conservative opponents, Gary
Bauer and Alan Keyes, have urged a return to the
pre-1993 policy barring gays from serving. Last month,
after the Clintons first spoke, Defense Secretary William
Cohen announced a three-month review of the policy,
especially into allegations that gays were being singled
out
for investigation and harassment. But former Marine
Commandant General Carl Mundy and other retired
officers have urged caution, warning that politically
inspired
changes could provoke a backlash in the all-volunteer
military. A recent study of professional officers
indicated as
many as 27 percent would leave the service if gays were
allowed to serve openly.
Four views on "don't ask, don't tell"
JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.
MARGARET WARNER:
Now, four views on "don't ask,
don't tell," and whether the
policy needs to be changed.
Michelle Benecke is
co-executive director of the
Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network. She served in the
Army as a Captain. Robert Maginnis is senior director of
national security and foreign affairs at the Family
Research
Council. He is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and was
part of the Pentagon's study group that came up with the
"don't ask, don't tell" policy. Lieutenant General Paul
Cerjan is president of Regent University. He retired after
34 years in the Army, where his last post was as president
of the National Defense University. And Major General
Vance Coleman retired from the Army reserves in 1989;
he served as an artillery officer in the Korean War, and
he's now director of a community education foundation.
Welcome all.
Michelle Benecke, President Clinton, the man who helped
certainly spearheaded this policy to start with, now says
it
doesn't work. Is he right?
MICHELLE BENECKE,
Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network: This policy doesn't
work. He is right. Military
leaders continue to ask people
about their orientation, to pursue
suspected gay members, and to
tolerate anti-gay harassment. In
the last six years, my organization, Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network, has assisted 2,000 military members
who are hurt by this law. Harassment increased 120%
alone last year in our cases. Discharges have increased
86% under this law.
MARGARET WARNER: This is just for being
homosexual.
MICHELLE BENECKE: Right. And the reason
discharges have increased is because people facing
harassment in the military have no recourse but to leave.
And finally, service members are being required to lie,
even
to their parents, their doctors and their best friends, as
a
condition of serving our military. No, this policy doesn't
work.
MARGARET WARNER: General Cerjan, do you think
the policy works?
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN
(Ret.), U.S. Army: I think it
absolutely works. It's got a few
things around the edges that have
to be cleaned up to enforce the
policy. But let's remember, this is
a law. It's not a policy. It was
enacted by a Democratic Congress in 1993, and if
anybody believes that commanders on the ground spend all
their time trying to ferret out people who may be of
homosexual orientation, they don't understand what it is to
serve in the military today.
MARGARET WARNER: Well, when you say you think it
works, what's your evidence? What do you mean it
works?
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN (Ret.): Well, if you take a
look at the comment that Michelle just made about people
leaving the service, 86% last year left the service
voluntarily
by identifying themselves as homosexual. Now, we don't
know whether or not they left because they wanted to get
out of the service or if they were in fact homosexuals.
So, I
think there's a little bit of questioning about these
statistics.
MICHELLE BENECKE: I want
to address that, Margaret,
because we do know why they
left. Our organization is the only
entity that documents what is
occurring under this law. And the
fact is that our military leaders
support those people who harass
their fellow soldiers rather than supporting well-meaning
officers and NCO's in the field who would rather treat
their
people fairly. That must end.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. Colonel Maginnis
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN (Ret.): I think that is a totally
incorrect allegation.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me get - all right - there are
two guests that haven't spoken yet. Colonel Maginnis, Bob
Maginnis, do you think it's working?
LT. COL. ROBERT
MAGINNIS (Ret.), The Family
Research Council: I've
consistently said "don't ask, don't
tell" since July of 1993 when
President Clinton announced that
this was the policy, having been
inside I said it's not going to work, one day we'll be here
declaring that. It causes homosexuals to pretend they
aren't
homosexuals. It causes the military to pretend it doesn't
care about homosexuals serving and it gives the
Congressmen a free ride. They don't have to deal with this
tough issue. It's time that we return to the question.
It's time
that we make "don't ask, don't tell" consistent with what
the law says that General Cerjan just pointed out.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me ask General
Coleman, do you think it works?
MAJ. GEN. VANCE
COLEMAN (Ret.), U.S. Army
Reserve: No. It absolutely does
not work. I disagree with
General Cerjan. You know, it's
obvious it isn't working. What
just happened at Fort
Campbell the leadership -
MARGARET WARNER: Excuse me. You're talking
about the beating death of a
MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN (Ret.): Absolutely. But
the leadership was supporting the policy we wouldn't have
things like that occurring. We wouldn't have this many
people leaving the service as leave now. My guess is that
they're leaving out of fear. When you cannot be yourself
and you don't know if you're going to be physically
damaged or killed, for that matter, because the
commanders do not support the policy, it seems to me the
thing to do is to run for safety and that is to leave the
service. And that's sad when my country comes to that
point.
LT. COL. ROBERT
MAGINNIS (Ret.): Margaret
we need to be careful about
painting the entire military on
the terrible problem in one
unit. That was a heinous crime
committed down there and Glover is going to hopefully
spend the rest of his life in jail for that murder. But at
the
same time we need to recognize nobody denies that
homosexuals have served for the last 221 years in the
military. It's: under what conditions may they serve? It's
been declared because they are cohort that brings in some
problems, the military says they're not going to contribute
to cohesion and quality force that it demands, Congress
agreed, they passed a very compelling law and therefore,
just like we discriminate against a whole host of other
people, we say that they should not serve openly.
What should be changed?
MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Three out of the four of
you don't think it works. Is there something to make the
current policy more workable? Michelle Benecke.
MICHELLE BENECKE: This
law is a double standard and it's
wrong. And ultimately Congress
needs to replace it with a rule
whereby everybody is simply
treated the same, but in the
meantime the least that the
military leaders can do for the
safety of our soldiers is to fulfill their promises to stop
asking, to stop pursuits and to stop harassment. And to
date they have not done so.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. General Cerjan, do
you think it needs to be enforced in that way in a better
way?
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN
(Ret.): I think that it's a
leadership issue and you will find
that commanders, generally
speaking, will protect any soldier
in the force who is harassed.
Now, if you think you're going to
continually try to ferret out those who have a homosexual
orientation, I think that's exactly wrong. You cannot make
a blanket statement that all commanders in the military,
the
complete cohort of officers and noncommissioned officers
spend all their time trying to ferret out homosexuals;
that's
an incorrect statement.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me just get Bob
Maginnis and then I'll come to you, General. What do you
think, Bob Maginnis, is the way to make this policy work?
You've alluded to it, but explain it a little more.
LT. COL. ROBERT
MAGINNIS (Ret.): Well, you
know, Mr. Cohen is trying to do
an inspection. They've already
declared the policy works back
in August. And, now they're
adding don't harass. I'm afraid--
and I agree, we don't want to harass anyone. Nobody
should be harassed. However that's going to chill the whole
process. I think we're going to make commanders out
there far more timid about initiating investigations.
Therefore we have a protected class in the military. And
that's not what the law says.
MARGARET WARNER: But what needs to be done?
LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS (Ret.): What we need
to do is return to the law. Congress has yet to have a
single
hearing on this issue since 1993. They need to hold the
military accountable for what the law says and they need to
reimpose the question which they can do based on that
law.
MARGARET WARNER: You mean when you're
recruited ask if they're gay. If they say they're gay,
they're
not recruited.
LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS (Ret.): We're
hypocritical. We're saying anybody can come in that we
haven't already asked a question on, please come in and
you can serve. That includes homosexuals. We ought to
stop being hypocritical about this.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. But, just so I
understand, because I want to go to General Coleman,
you're saying essentially gays should be allowed to serve
in
the military but only if they're in the closet.
LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS (Ret.): That's right.
That's the condition under which even George Washington
adhered to and for the last 220 years.
MARGARET WARNER: Okay. General Coleman, take it
away. You think this can be fixed?
MAJ. GEN. VANCE
COLEMAN (Ret.): No, I don't
think. I think the law, as the
General said, should not be
there, period. We should go
back to what the Army was as
an individual, whether black,
white, blonde, blue eyed, gray haired, whatever, if I want
to serve, I should be able to serve. And providing that
service, I'll have to be able to be what I am. I should not
have to pretend that I'm something that I'm not. It seems
to
me that the Army is to fight and to win. I remember that
from day one -- to fight and to win -- nothing about sexual
orientation. So, we can train people to fight and win, no
matter what their sexual preference might be, it seems to
me that's the bottom line.
MARGARET WARNER: So you agree with both
Democratic candidates who would like to see homosexuals
able to serve openly?
MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN (Ret.): Absolutely.
MARGARET WARNER: All right.
MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN (Ret.): I served
openly. I don't know why they shouldn't be able to.
MARGARET WARNER: You mean you as a black man?
MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN (Ret.): That's right.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. General Cerjan, what
about that?
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN
(Ret.): First of all I think race is
not a choice. Homosexuality is.
Having said that, let me talk
about the comments made in that
last night on the debates. It
seems to me that there's a
problem here since we're not talking policy, we're talking
laws. So the law has to be changed in order for any
President to appoint an individual who supports an openly
homosexual policy. I think that's something for the lawyers
to attend to in terms of whether or not it's legal to get a
chairman of the Joint Chiefs or a person to serve who is in
direct contradiction to the law. Basically, let me make one
more comment.
MARGARET WARNER: Please do.
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN (Ret.): It really bothers me
that we would spend 30-some odd years educating and
training the leadership of this country to move into
positions
of vast responsibility as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
and chiefs of services to give that military advice to the
President when we're about to put our sons and daughters
in harm's way and we would eliminate the best and
brightest because of a policy that says unless you support
an openly gay policy in the military that only addressed
1.5
to 2% of the population does not play to what we're about
and that's to win the nation's wars.
MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN (Ret.): One more
comment if I may.
MARGARET WARNER: Yes.
MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN (Ret.): You know, it
could be, General, that maybe the best and the brightest to
lead this country to victory just might be gay.
For gays in the military
MARGARET WARNER: All right. Michelle Benecke,
make the case for letting gays serve openly.
MICHELLE BENECKE: Gays do serve openly in some
units and gays have served openly in the past. Colonel Kim
Meyer is one example; Marine Sergeant Justin Elzin.
Through experience we have learned that when people
know other gay people, they lose their stereotypes. And
by the way, prejudice shouldn't be a reason to exclude
people in the first place. The real issue is who do we want
in the military? Do we want Barry Winchells, someone
who all of the testimony shows was a dedicated soldier; his
unit members took the stand and testified they would go to
combat with him without hesitation. That example, of any,
should show that what breaks down unit morale is
prejudice and hatred. We shouldn't want to recruit people
like the man who killed PFC Barry Winchell. We should
want to recruit fair-minded Americans.
MARGARET WARNER: Bob Maginnis.
LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS (Ret.): We should not
make decisions based on hatred or discrimination, but we
should make decisions on what is the best interest of the
military and the armed forces of this country. You know,
right now we recruit people with an eye on building
cohesive teams. The cohesion is the glue that holds the
units together. It overcomes terror and fear on the
battlefield. Very few Americans understand that firsthand.
And the reality is if that if you can't overcome that by
camaraderie and cohesiveness, the trust and confidence
that is built over a lot of time and a lot of activity,
then
you're going to have an ineffective unit. The thing that we
have discovered destroys that
the most comes down to, you
know, favoritism, sexual
relationships, favoring one over
another. We already have
problems where we mix young
men and young women, and
when we put young homosexuals together, you won't be
able to distinguish one from the other. And then you end up
with sort of a problem the Australians and the Brits are
about to have and they try to prosecute all indications of
sexual relationships like holding hands between a boy and
girl. You know, we have to focus once again on the
importance of military readiness. What is our military all
about? It's about preserving peace and fighting wars when
it's required.
MICHELLE BENECKE: And Margaret, I would say
"don't ask, don't tell" don't pursue hurts military
readiness.
It hurts military readiness, because it's harassment and
investigations that break down unit morale.
Against gays in the military
MARGARET WARNER: General Cerjan, what's your
view on the military cohesion argument and whether letting
homosexuals serve openly will affect that?
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN (Ret.): Well, I think that
across the board, as Colonel Maginnis said, you have a
cohesion issue in terms of whether or not soldiers,
sailors,
airmen, believe in their leaders and whether or not they're
willing to go forward when the test comes to walk into the
crucible. So I think the homosexuality issue affects that
because, as we found out in so many instances that
Michelle brought up, there is harassment out there and that
needs to be stopped. We need to apply an evenhanded
policy as the policy was written. But the thing that
bothers
me is that when we start taking look at the readiness of
the
service and as General Coleman said to fight and defend
and win the nation's wars, that means that we have to take
every measure we can to insure that we have a
combat-ready force.
MARGARET WARNER: But what are you saying
exactly?
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN (Ret.): Well, we're becoming
a social engineering agency and that's not what the
military
was intended to do.
MARGARET WARNER: I'm sorry, but we're almost out
of time. I want to make sure I understand your point,
General. Are you saying because there are straight
members of the military who don't like homosexuals or find
them distasteful or anathema, or whatever that affects unit
cohesion or not?
LT. GEN. PAUL CERJAN (Ret.): I think it does. I
absolutely believe it does because you have to believe in
your leaders and, you know, this whole idea that you die
for your country has been proven to be incorrect. You die
for the soldier that sits next to you in the foxhole. And
you
have to believe in, and there's a whole bunch of love-trust
and understanding about what you're doing in terms of
what you're doing in the unit. And so, consequently, I
think
it affects unit cohesion.
MARGARET WARNER: All right. General Coleman,
address that point.
MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN (Ret.): I suspect that
any differences between individuals could affect unit
cohesiveness. Let's not just look at homosexuality. That
happens and I saw that when I was a younger officer, it
happens with people that just don't like each other. It
happens for various reasons, not because of
homosexuality. So you can't just use that to say that
affects you can't have it because it affects unit
cohesion.
If that were true, then I think a lot of other things that
must
be eliminated. I didn't like you again because you had red
hair, I didn't know you because you were six feet tall or I
didn't like you because you were heavy. I didn't like you
because you were different than
I am. That was the thing that the
integration between blacks and
whites back in the 1950s with
President Truman. People had
the same arguments then. We
overcame that because we
learned to trust and to respect each other. And I would say
to you that prior to the leadership of the Army making
homosexuality an issue, it was not an issue. Homosexuals
fought side by side with straights. And there was no
problem. It became a problem when the leadership made it
a problem. General, I agree with you. It's a leadership
problem, not a soldier problem.
MARGARET WARNER: All right, gentlemen and
Michelle Benecke, we're going to have to leave it there.
Thank you all four very much.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
Gwen Ifill leads a discussion with two lawyers on
each side of the
Miranda rights case, which the Supreme Court is
scheduled to rule on
later this year.
JIM LEHRER: Now, Gwen Ifill has the Miranda rights
story.
GWEN IFILL: Four sentences
repeated so often on cop shows
and in movies that Americans
assume they are an essential
protection. "You have the right
to remain silent. Anything you
say can and will be used against
you. You have the right to talk with a lawyer before being
questioned and to have the lawyer present during the
questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be
provided for you before questioning begins." This is the
Miranda warning dating from the 1966 Supreme Court
decision in Miranda versus Arizona.
To supporters, Miranda is a safeguard against police
abuse; to opponents, a spoiler in hundreds of thousands of
criminal cases every year because if the warning is not
given or given improperly, a defendant's confession can be
thrown out. The Supreme Court agreed earlier this month
to take up a challenge to Miranda from Maryland. In it, an
accused bank robber's confession was excluded in his trial
because police gave him the Miranda warning after they
questioned him, not before.
Each side of Miranda
Two perspectives now. Paul Cassell, a University of Utah
law professor, has been a long time advocate to loosen the
Miranda requirement. He will argue the case before the
Supreme Court. Steven Shapiro is a legal director of the
American Civil Liberties Union, and favors keeping
Miranda protections in place. Mr. Cassell, what is wrong
or right with the Miranda protections as they now stand?
PAUL CASSELL: Well, there
are some things that are right.
Giving Miranda warnings has not
proven to be a problem. What
has proven to be a problem is
the exclusionary rule feature of
Miranda. That is the feature that
throws out perfectly voluntary confession. For example, in
this case, all the courts have agreed that Mr. Dickerson's
confession is voluntary, and yet now for two and a half
years there's been litigation over "what time did he give
his
Miranda warning?" Congress has said, "let's let in
perfectly
voluntary confessions." And that's what I'm optimistic the
Supreme Court will uphold.
GWEN IFILL: When we speak about Mr. Dickerson,
we're talking about the Maryland case.
PAUL CASSELL: That's exactly right, yes.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Shapiro, what about you? What do
you think is wrong or right? What should be upheld in the
Miranda warning?
STEVEN SHAPIRO: Well, I
think the Miranda decision itself
ought to be upheld. And you
know, Gwen, it's odd to me that
this controversy has even arisen,
because Miranda really is a
win-win situation. It gives the
police a clear set of rules to follow. If anything, it
makes it
easier to admit confessions at trial, as long as the police
obey the rules. It is fair to defendants because it informs
them of their rights. It protects the basic Fifth
Amendment
right against self- incrimination. And it promotes a sense
of
fairness, integrity in the criminal justice system. And so,
unlike Paul, I'm actually quite optimistic that this
Supreme
Court will reaffirm the core of the Miranda holding.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Cassell,
your argument, as I
understand it is that, at least in
part, that there are so many
technicalities that Miranda is
used as a technicality to throw
cases out. What evidence is there of that?
PAUL CASSELL: Well, there's substantial empirical
evidence, that over the last 50 years, Miranda's had a
devastating effect on law enforcement. If you look at crime
clearance rates -- the rate at which police officers solve
crimes -- from 1950 to 1965, it was about 60%, but then
fell dramatically after Miranda. And if you work through
the numbers, as I have with some econometricians, it turns
out that about 70,000 violent criminal cases each year go
unsolved because of Miranda. And so it's not a win-win
situation, at least if you're willing to go beyond the
groups
that the ACLU looks at, and look, for example, at victims
of crime who are typically poor or racial minorities,
residents of inner cities. They're the ones who lose
because of Miranda. Criminals are set free and set free to
commit their crimes again. That's the problem with
Miranda, and that's why I think the Supreme Court will
take a hard look at correcting some of the excesses of the
decision.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Shapiro, your chance to pony up a
little evidence, exactly what evidence is there that
defendants' rights would be compromised without
Miranda?
STEVEN SHAPIRO: Well, let
me just respond to something
that Paul has just said because
he has spent a lot of time
promoting this statistic that he
just described, and the fact is
that there is considerable dispute
within the academic community about the validity of those
statistics. And rather than get into a fight here or an
argument between academics or between lawyers, I think
the most powerful fact in this case is that the Justice
Department -- on behalf of the FBI and behalf of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, behalf of IRS,
on behalf of the entire federal law enforcement structure
has filed a brief in this case asking the court to uphold
Miranda. And it just defies imagination to think that the
federal government and the federal law enforcement would
be filing that brief if it thought it had Miranda had
the
consequences for law enforcement that Paul just
described. In fact, the overwhelming proof is that Miranda
has not resulted in guilty criminals significant
numbers of
guilty criminals going free. And what it does do is protect
against the abuses that the Supreme Court saw for
decades in coerced confession cases before it announced
the Miranda rule in 1966.
Are Constitutional rights enough?
GWEN IFILL: What about the constitutional
underpinnings of this case, Mr. Cassell? You'll be arguing
this in front of the court. They argue the Constitution
does guarantee a right to remain silent. Is that enough?
PAUL CASSELL: Well, as
the court has repeatedly said
about Miranda rights is that
they're not constitutional
rights. They're simply
safeguards that the Court has
created. And one of the little-known facts about Miranda
is that Chief Justice Warren, himself, in the Miranda
opinion, invited Congress to come in and adopt alternative
approaches for dealing with this problem. So the law that
we're talking about here -- the voluntary confessions law
-- was enacted at the express invitation of Congress. And
I think also, we're going to see considerable support for
the law throughout the law enforcement community. It's
true that the politically driven brief filed by the Justice
Department supports Miranda, but the career people in
the Justice Department -- the criminal division, U.S.
attorneys around the country-- support the position I'm
arguing. The National District Attorneys Association
supports it. Many of the nation's largest law enforcement
groups support it as well. So, when you talk about where
rank and file law enforcement officers are, what they say
is, "look, we'll continue to give Miranda warning, but
don't
throw out a perfectly voluntary confession because there's
some technicality involved or technical question about how
it was obtained."
GWEN IFILL: Well. That
leads exactly to the next
question here, Mr. Shapiro: If
someone confesses to a
crime, actually says, "yes, I
did it," and it's someone who
you have every reason to believe did do the crime, why
should that be thrown out?
STEVEN SHAPIRO: Well, in many circumstances, it is
not going to be thrown out. It will not be thrown out if
somebody confesses before the police interrogate them; it
will not be thrown out if the police give the Miranda
warnings before interrogating them. But as you said
before, quite properly, Gwen, we do have a constitutional
principle that says people have the right to remain silent.
And in our system, the government cannot force you to
give evidence against yourself. And if that is the
constitutional rule, I don't see any basis for objecting
to a
principle that says people have a right to be informed of
their rights. Do we really want to live in a system and
live
in a society in which the law enforcement depends upon
keeping people ignorant of their rights?
And let me just say, I don't think you can dismiss the
Justice Department brief in this case as politically
driven.
The fact of the matter is, the law that is now before the
Supreme Court was enacted in 1968; it has not been
relied on by a single administration, Democrat or
Republican, in the intervening 30 years. This is not an
issue
of politics; this is an issue of constitutional law. And if
Miranda were not, in fact, a constitutional ruling, the
Supreme Court could not have applied it against the states,
as it did in Miranda and as it has done in many cases
subsequently. And while it is true that Chief Justice
Warren
said in Miranda that there's nothing magical about the
words and that Congress and the state legislatures could
adopt equally effective safeguards to protect the Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination, that is not
what
Congress did in the statute. Congress did not adopt any
safeguard at all. Instead, it went back to a general test
of
voluntariness, which was precisely the test that the
Supreme Court had rejected in Miranda.
So what you have here now is a situation where Congress
has purported to overrule the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the Constitution, and that is something
that
Congress does not have the authority to do in our system.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Cassell, Mr. Shapiro just referred to
Earl Warren's reference to there not being any magic in the
words, but certainly Americans have gotten used to the
idea that these words represent some sort of protection of
their basic rights. How do you argue that that's not true?
PAUL CASSELL: Well, I
argue, in fact, it is true. And
you'll actually see many of those
same words in the law that I'm
defending. Congress passed a
law that included many of the
same rights that are included in
the Miranda opinion. And so what you find in the law
itself, voluntary confessions law, is that the evidence can
be used if police officers give warnings, and to look at
all
of the factors. So police officers are going to continue to
give warnings if this law is upheld. That's not an issue
today. What is an issue is whether a perfectly voluntary
confession from indisputably guilty criminals can be thrown
out because of some technical issue.
It's simply not the case to say, as Steven has, that no
administration has ever relied on this law. In fact, if
you go
back as far as 1969, you'll find that the Nixon
administration litigated this law all over the country. In
1975, the Tenth Circuit out here in Denver, upheld the
law. So, it has been used actually for about 25 or 30
years. It was even used during the start of the Clinton
administration. They've just made the political decision
not
to enforce this act of Congress. I'm confident that the
Supreme Court will agree that this is a constitutional
law.
Voluntary versus coerced confessions
GWEN IFILL: It seems that we keep coming back to the
question of voluntary versus coerced confessions. Mr.
Shapiro, how exactly and who gets to decide what a
voluntary confession is -- something someone says of their
own free will -- and what a coerced confession is, that
presumably law enforcement officials forced out of
someone?
STEVEN SHAPIRO: Well, ultimately it's the courts that
decide. And one of the things that produced the Miranda
rule was, in fact, the difficulty of determining whether a
confession is voluntary or a confession is coerced, given
what the Supreme Court described as the inherently
coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogations -- station
house interrogations.
So what you have
pre-Miranda, is you have
litigation in case after case
after case, where courts were
required to look at whole
range of factors to decide
whether or not the confession was voluntary. You had
more litigation, you had less certainty, you had more
confusion, not only on the part of the police, but on the
part of judges and criminal defendants. Miranda really
simplified and rationalized the system which is why many,
many law enforcement professionals -- Paul's comment
notwithstanding -- support Miranda, believe it is
professionalized law enforcement, and believe it has in
fact
made it easier for them to operate and have valid
confessions admitted into evidence. Nobody's against the
use of uncoerced, voluntary confessions. Miranda is
designed to ensure that the confessions that get into trial
are in fact voluntary and uncoerced.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Cassell, if you make your case before
the Supreme Court, you argue that people will still
continue to give the Miranda warning. If you don't make
your case against the Supreme Court, the chance is that
the Supreme Court will uphold the law as it currently
stands. So, why is this at the Supreme Court? Why does
this have to be argued?
PAUL CASSELL: Well, I think the key issue is exactly
what Steven just said -- should a perfectly voluntary
confession be thrown out. He said that no one would
argue against that. In fact, in this case, Mr. Dickerson's
lawyer -- the case out of Maryland -- Mr. Dickerson's
lawyer is arguing to throw out this confession that all the
courts have found to be voluntary. And that raises
fundamental questions about our criminal justice system:
Are we going to make the search for truth the overriding
and central focus of criminal justice? For too long, we've
diverted our attention. We've looked at some of these side
issues, these side issues and ancillary questions. This
case
presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clearly
say, "We're going to make the search for truth the key
issue, and we're going to give juries all reliable
evidence to
make that decision."
GWEN IFILL: Steven Shapiro, Paul Cassell, thank you
both very much.
PAUL CASSELL: Thank you.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando ( CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:03:51.00
SUBJECT: FOX The Edge, January 6, 2000
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich ( CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher ( CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez ( CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP L WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maura M. Pally ( CN=Maura M. Pally/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith (CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison ( CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP[ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa (CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP] WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li (CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov (CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum ( CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Scott Hynes (CN=Scott Hynes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez (CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan (CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird ( CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy (CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson (CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea ( CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOPI. WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer (CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine (CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz (CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
FOX THE EDGE WITH PAULA ZAHN
January 6, 2000
PAULA ZAHN, HOST: Tonight in THE EDGE: It's a jungle
out there. Just look at tonight's debate in New Hampshire. The GOP
candidates took the stage for some sparring. A few of the candidates will
join me, and I'll ask them who won the war of words.
Stay tuned. Get THE EDGE.
(NEWS BREAK)
ZAHN: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE EDGE. Thank you
very much for joining us tonight.
A little bit later on, we will hear from candidates
Steve Forbes and Orrin Hatch.
But leading THE EDGE tonight: Things are getting hot
in chilly New Hampshire. The big primary is less than a month away, and
tonight the GOP candidates took the stage yet again, hoping that their
take on the issues will give them the edge with the voters.
Let's first turn to three of my favorite political
know-it-alls, and I mean this, guys, in the best possible way. In
Washington, FOX NEWS political analyst Juan Williams, and here in New
York, former senator Al D'Amato, who is also a FOX NEWS political analyst,
and John Fund, editorial page writer for "The Wall Street Journal." He's
not a FOX political analyst, but we won't hold that against you, anyway.
Welcome to all three of you.
Senator D'Amato, your take on tonight.
AL D'AMATO, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: The edge
went to George Bush. Clearly, he demonstrated composure. He did not go for
the jugular when it was very tempting when the question was put out there
about Senator McCain and the FCC. He handled it, I think, in a very
diplomatic way, and then turned it around and said, "You know, John, this
isn't personal. We disagree on philosophy as it relates to the campaign
financing."
So he addressed what probably is one of McCain's
greatest points. He took it on. You know, he's the--he's the fellow who's
opposed to the present system. He gets great sympathy as it relates to
that, a kind of non-politician, a politician who's a non-politician. So I
think, clearly, George Bush acquitted himself better than he has
heretofore. He not only survived tonight, he picked up.
ZAHN: Juan, don't you think, though, he might have
missed an opportunity when it came to that issue of the FCC and John
McCain?
JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: I
think
ZAHN: I mean, he was clearly given the opportunity
to call him a hypocrite if he chose to do so.
WILLIAMS: Right. And I think
ZAHN: He did not.
WILLIAMS: I think that's in the water. It's in the
air. Now, the question, Paula, really is one of political strategy. Is it
the case that if George W. Bush had attacked, he would be seen as going
for the jugular, as Alfonse D'Amato just said, and maybe therefore seen as
attacking a fellow Republican on a point of vulnerability and maybe
therefore engender a backlash against him?
The problem that McCain has is less with George W.
Bush and less with Republicans than with independents. Remember, McCain's
best hope in New Hampshire is that independent voters will swing over to
him and say that "We like John McCain, the reformer." And McCain's, you
know, whole rap has been ``I'm the guy that's for campaign finance. George
W. Bush is not. And I'm the guy that's clean and pure as the driven snow
up here in New Hampshire." His image is being terrifically damaged by
this--by the idea that somehow he was paid off--his top contributors were
paying him to lobby the FCC on their behalf.
JOHN FUND, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, Juan, I
actually think that's very unfair because if you actually look at the
facts of this case, the question is not what John McCain did, but what has
the FCC done. For almost four years, it's basically held a public
television station, the station that Mr. Rogers and ``Mr. Rogers's
Neighborhood" belongs to, hostage. The station is $14 million in the red
and because the FCC won't make a decision, the station is in danger of
going under! So the real question here is not what John McCain did, but
what is the FCC doing? I think John McCain is getting a bum rap on this.
WILLIAMS: Well, John, I think that's
ZAHN: And in the end, Al D'Amato
WILLIAMS: a wonderful point
ZAHN: But let's not get buried in all this minutiae
right now. Do you think the voter gives a darn about this, Al?
D'AMATO: No. But both John and Juan are right.
McCain is being hurt by this, the fact that it's out there now and this is
being used and can tarnish his image. But Juan was also right in saying
that George Bush, if he had gone to the jugular, I think there would have
been a backlash. Republicans would have said, "What are you doing?" John
happens to be right. This is a non-issue, really, if you look at the
facts. But you know what? The public doesn't give a darn. They're not
going to get into the facts. The facts of the situation are that what
McCain did was absolutely appropriate. Everyone elected should be there to
say to the bureaucracy, "What are you doing? How come you're not
acting?"
FUND: This is no Keating 5 case.
ZAHN: Did you do that when you were in the Senate?
D'AMATO: Absolutely. I prided myself.
FUND: Paula
D'AMATO:
in doing that.
FUND: The difference is this is no Keating 5 case.
There is no crook here.
ZAHN: All right, let
FUND: And John McCain did get some legitimate
criticism for that case
D'AMATO: But John
FUND: but not for this one.
D'AMATO:
the problem is that the public is never
going to know it. And there's where Juan's point is that McCain has been
hurt. They'll never know that his inquiry was absolutely appropriate. It
should have been done before. They should have said to the FCC, "How come
you're not making a decision? Make it one way or the other."
ZAHN: Let's move on to an issue Juan also brought
up, which is the issue of how McCain has to appeal to independents. Now,
John McCain has not unveiled his tax plan, but I think it was quite clear
to anybody listening to the debate tonight he's not going to offer as
large of a tax cut as George Bush. Does that hurt him in New Hampshire,
John?
FUND: Well, New Hampshire is the most anti-tax state
in the country.
ZAHN: Right!
FUND: Republicans are the most anti-tax constituency
in New Hampshire. I think George Bush, by drawing a contrast with John
McCain's tax plan, which really hasn't been unveiled yet, scored points in
New Hampshire. He was looking for--he's looking to come up from behind in
New Hampshire. I think John McCain is going to be vulnerable on taxes in
New Hampshire.
ZAHN: Juan, jump in there.
WILLIAMS: Well, you know, the key point of attack
for John McCain on George W. Bush and the tax plan is that he says George
W. Bush's plan would spend the entire surplus and not protect Social
Security, to which--you saw that little bit of back-and-forth
sniping--"Yes, it will," ``No, it won't," Yes, it will"--which was
cut. But I think that the point here is that George W. Bush has some
vulnerability connected to his father. Remember George Bush saying `Read
my lips, no new taxes." Here is his son saying not only is he promising
no new taxes, but promising a tax cut. So he's taking it to an extreme.
And McCain is saying "You're behaving in a reckless manner that endangers
the American economy." I don't know if that's going to help, but I would
say that George W. Bush's position is the one that's going to be in the
headlines tomorrow morning.
ZAHN: All right, we're going to take a short break
right now. More on all of this in just a moment or two.
And a little later on in the show: Hillary and Bill
have their first sleepover in their new digs. And I'll be talking to
couple of folks who would love to move into a big white house next
January: Steve Forbes and Senator Orrin Hatch.
Keep it on THE EDGE.
(22:09)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH (R), TEXAS GOVERNOR, PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE: Come on down and let me show you what I've done. You talk about
same-sex marriage? I'm against same-sex marriage. I'm the only person on
this stage that signed a parental notification law. I've got a good
record, Gary. It's easy to talk. It's easy to talk. What Republicans need
to do is elect somebody who has gotten results, tangible results that
people can see, that people can put their arms around and say, "This
man's a leader." And that's been my record in the state of Texas, and
that'll be my record as president of the United States, as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAHN: Well, the gloves are starting to come off
among Republicans. We're continuing with our lead story tonight, tonight's
GOP debate in New Hampshire, and we're having our own very own debate
right here. Our participants in Washington, FOX NEWS political analyst
Juan Williams, here in New York, former senator Al D'Amato, who is also a
FOX NEWS political analyst, and John Fund, editorial page writer for "The
Wall Street Journal."
Welcome back.
What Governor Bush went on to say was that he came
very close to making a ``no new taxes" pledge. Was that irresponsible?
D'AMATO: No. The fact of the matter is that when his
dad said to the convention "No new taxes," you know, "Read my lips,"
he went from a situation where he was trailing Dukakis substantially to
pulling right ahead of him because the American people were really saying,
"Don't--don't keep," you know, ``solving our problem by raising taxes."
What happened was he broke the pledge unnecessarily. He should have said
to the Congress, "Let me tell you, fellows. I'm going to veto those
bills." But what happened, his inner council--John Sununu, who up to that
point had been a tough guy, had done a good job--caved in. And President
Bush made the mistake
(CROSSTALK)
D'AMATO:
governor understands that, and he's
going to keep that
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: But has he walked himself into some sort of
cage here?
FUND: Well, there's another problem. Steve Forbes
today brought out the fact that there's controversy in Texas whether he
kept his anti-tax pledge in 1994, so...
ZAHN: Well, he accused him of raising the state tax
and the business taxes.
FUND: Well, he proposed a tax shift, but there's
some controversy about that. But I think Governor Bush has realized that
his father made a mistake. He's also realized that his tax plan does work,
and he's going to lock himself into that. Now, that's going to be
controversial because John McCain is going to attack him on it. He's going
to be called reckless. But Governor Bush has made an opinion that in the
Republican primary, the anti-tax position is what binds Republicans of all
stripes, social and economic, together.
ZAHN: Gays in the military was a huge issue in last
night's debate, less of an issue tonight. Juan, did anybody score points
on that?
WILLIAMS: Well, you know, it's very interesting.
Here you get a divide that's not McCain versus Bush. Here you get a divide
that's more like McCain and Bush versus Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes and some of
the others, where McCain and Bush are both saying, you know, "Don't ask,
don't tell" is fine. McCain says the policy's working. He won't bother to
change it. Bush says he's a "Don't ask, don't tell" man. And the others
are making the point that conservatives, moral conservatives, are saying
"This is wrong, and you need to make a stand on this issue."
Now, since the two frontrunners aren't fighting over
it, I don't think you're going to see a change. But there certainly is a
clear divide within that Republican tent.
ZAHN: Al, you're shaking your head.
D'AMATO: No,
ZAHN: I couldn't tell whether it was in agreement or
disagreement.
D'AMATO: I agree with Juan. I agree with his
analysis. But I also make an observation. Do you know who has been doing
absolutely fabulously? And he is not getting the kind of--Orrin Hatch.
He--he brought down the house, I guess it was a couple of weeks ago, when
he talked about Steve Forbes's wallet and not being able--you know, not
ZAHN: Not being able to lift it.
D'AMATO:
being strong enough to lift it. He's
sensible. He makes a--he's accrediting himself well. I don't think it's
going to show in the polls, but he's done a heck of a job.
ZAHN: Is he
FUND: You know
ZAHN: wasting his time, though? He keeps on
citing a poll that 85 percent of Americans really haven't decided who
they're going to vote for, but someone pointed out in the debate tonight
he has 1 percent--almost a hash mark--in New Hampshire in the polls.
FUND: Pat Buchanan was in single digits at this
point before the New Hampshire primary in 1996, and he ended up winning
it. I wish the media went beyond its Noah's Ark theory of coverage, which
is you have to have two candidates by two candidates, two in the Democrats
and two on the Republicans, and you can't cover anyone else. The other
four candidates are legitimate candidates. They made some good points
tonight. I think it's a mistake to marginalize them all completely, and
that's what some of the media's trying to do.
ZAHN: All right, Juan
WILLIAMS: Well
ZAHN: you get the closing thoughts tonight. Fire
ahead.
WILLIAMS: Well, I just think it's money. Money is
why those two are as far ahead. And clearly, with Bush, it's of historic
proportions. The other thing is lots of people went after Bush today on
the experience issue. Bush is clearly saying, "I've been a governor. I've
got the experience. I've led." And when it comes to these morality issues
that so many of you are concerned with, you can see the results of what
I've done in Texas. Come on down and take a look."
John McCain's response was, ``I was a leader, too,
in the military. Don't forget I've got a story to tell." So that
experience issue is also becoming one of the defining issues. I think
you're going to see more of it tomorrow when the candidates, the
Republicans, go down to South Carolina and as they continue these debates.
ZAHN: I lied. You got to give me a one-word answer.
Did the moderator preside over a fair debate tonight? John?
FUND: He was a zookeeper.
ZAHN: Zookeeper?
D'AMATO: He did a good job in tough circumstances.
They were wild.
ZAHN: It was pretty freewheeling! Thank you,
gentlemen, all-for joining us tonight, Senator D'Amato, John Fund and Juan
Williams.
A bit later on: Hillary and Bill play house,
spending the first night in their new pad. And coming up next: my
conversation with a couple of the candidates, Mr. Forbes and Senator
Hatch.
We'll be right back. Keep it on THE EDGE.
(22:16)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE FORBES (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am
independent. The special interests and lobbyists have no hooks into me.
And that's why I think my campaign is catching on. I'm picking my pockets.
I'm not picking the pockets of the taxpayers. And special interests have
no interest in me because they know their gravy train is going to be
derailed when I'm president of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAULA ZAHN, HOST: And welcome back.
That was Steve Forbes getting his two or three cents
in during the debate.
I talked to him right after he stepped off the
stage, and started by asking him about the latest controversy to dog
Senator McCain. It appears the senator asked the FCC to act on a request
on behalf of a TV station owner who also happens to be one of his
supporters. I asked him if he was satisfied by Mr. McCain's defense of his
actions.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FORBES: Well, I think the whole issue underscores
why we need a true outsider in Washington who is not beholden in any way
to the special interests and who also recognizes the way to deal with that
cesspool in Washington, that swamp, and that is you can't reform it or
legislate against it. You got to drain it. And that's why
ZAHN: Do you think Mr. McCain--are you saying that
Mr. McCain is a hypocrite?
FORBES: No, I'm just saying that the system that we
have is one that only an outsider's going to truly be able to change, and
that begins with getting rid of this tax code and giving people a genuine
tax cut. Half of the
ZAHN: But let's go back to
FORBES: Half of the lobbying
ZAHN: Mr. McCain's actions. Was what he did
FORBES: Let me--let me just finish.
ZAHN: Was he appropriate in taking this action to
push the FCC to make some kind of a decision?
FORBES: You ask John McCain on that. I just see it
as part and parcel of why we need fundamental change in Washington. The
point I was
ZAHN: You brought up the issue of.
FORBES: going to make--the point I was going to
make
ZAHN: the tax cut
FORBES: The point I was going to make is that half
of the lobbying activity in Washington revolves around the tax code. You
get rid of that, and half of the 67,000 lobbyists in Washington are going
to have to find honest work. That is real reform.
ZAHN: The issue of tax cuts dominated part of the
debate tonight, and Governor Bush came very close to making a "No new
taxes" pledge. Were you reading his lips?
FORBES: Well, he made a pledge when he ran for
governor in 1994 that he wouldn't raise the state sales tax, he wouldn't
enact a statewide business tax. And yet a couple of years later, after he
got in office, he violated both pledges. And his tax cut proposal is a
lobbyist's dream. It keeps the IRS as we know it. It doesn't change any of
the way taxes are done in Washington. It's very phased in over five to
eight years. It doesn't do anything on capital gains. Why don't we get to
the heart of it and get rid of it? And realists always say, ``Well, it's
unrealistic to do it." I think the American people ought to define what
is realistic in Washington and not the other way around.
ZAHN: Are you surprised Senator McCain hasn't
offered a tax cut proposal for everybody to chew on and analyze?
FORBES: Well, he's been showing, as they say, a
little bit of leg on it. And apparently, it's going to be even smaller
than what Governor Bush proposed. So I think it's--both proposals look
like they're going to be typical Washington proposals, just trimming
around the edges. That's not going to work. We need to do real, genuine
reform, starting by getting rid of this horrible code. And neither one
seems to have the stomach to make that fight. I'll make that fight, and
I'll win it.
ZAHN: I know that your campaigning hard, but if you
are not successful and you do not get the nomination, I am told that you
would entertain a possible appointment in a George Bush nomination if he
gets elected. Is that true or not?
FORBES: I think the question should be is George
Bush going to be on my short list for vice president because I am going to
win this nomination, and I am going to win this election because I've got
more bold, conservative ideas to help working Americans than all of the
other campaigns put together.
ZAHN: OK, that issue came up during the debate
tonight, and you were asked, if that is true, why are your ideas getting
so little traction?
FORBES: Oh, I think they're getting real traction,
if you come out and look at the crowds that I'm getting. People are very
interested in learning more. And after the holidays, I think the American
people, especially in New Hampshire and lowa, are starting to really focus
on this race. And that's why I'm optimistic.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: Mr. Forbes, thanks for your time.
PAULA ZAHN, HOST: And Senator Orrin Hatch was also
gracious enough to brave the cold and talk to us right after the debate. I
asked him if he thought tonight's debate was fair.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
U.S. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE: Well, it was a little unruly. I thought it was all right, but
you know, I wish we could get into a debate where you have two hours,
where everybody can just take off the gloves and let it go. But
personally,4 want to always be fair to every other candidate, and I think
I was tonight.
ZAHN: The criticism I've heard is of the moderator
himself and that perhaps he gave more time to McCain and Bush, the two
frontrunners in the New Hampshire polls. Is that true?
HATCH: Well, that--that's one reason why I grabbed
the mike and said, "Hey, I'm going to say a few words here, whether you
like it or not." And Tim's a good guy, and he's a very good moderator,
and--but I do think that they kind of lost control of what was going on.
And I have to say it was--it became kind of a dialogue between McCain
and--and--McCain and Bush.
But look, I cited that Joan Shorenstein poll. That's
the Kennedy School of Government. It's the Pew Foundation poll that is the
most definitive poll there is. A month ago, two thirds of the American
people hadn't even decided who they'd pick as president. Only 16 percent
picked George Bush. Everybody else was in single digits.
Yesterday they announced their subsequent poll.
Three quarters now of the American people--it's gone up--have not decided
who they're going to pick for president. And George Bush has dropped from
16 percent down to 13 percent, and everybody else is still in single
digits, Gore being at 6 percent, everybody else below that.
ZAHN: All right. But let's
HATCH: Now, that's pathetic.
ZAHN: But let's say coming out of the Iowa caucuses
and the New Hampshire primary, you still have single-digit support among
voters. Will you drop out?
HATCH: Well, I don't intend to have that, so I'm
going to give it everything I can. And frankly, we're getting some
resonance in lowa, and maybe a little bit here tonight in New Hampshire.
So don't count me out. I think that--I think--look, I think McCain can
only go so far. I think his campaign finance bill basically hurts
Republicans badly. I would lots rather have had him shake hands with
Republicans rather than Bill Bradley on it. And you just have to wonder
why all the Democrats favor his bill and hardly any Republican does.
ZAHN: Well, let's talk about
HATCH: And then George Bush
ZAHN: Can we talk about
HATCH: George Bush
ZAHN: the FCC squabble for a moment? Was that
hypocritical, what he did?
HATCH: Well, let me just say this. I think that John
McCain is finding out what a lot of other people know, that love affairs
with the liberal press in this country are not any more stable than love
affairs with Bill Clinton. And I've got to tell you that, you know, it's a
tough thing. But I know John McCain
ZAHN: But you're making it sound like the press is
turning on him. Was what he did on his--with his position as the head of a
committee the appropriate thing, to push action from the FCC? He tried to
defend himself.
HATCH: Well, let me--let.
ZAHN:
this evening.
HATCH: Let me put it to you this way. You know, in
all honesty, I get a little tired of John complaining that--that everybody
who takes money as a political candidate has to be doing it for a corrupt
motive, and-everybody who gives it has to be doing it for a corrupt
motive. That's just not true.
But let's be fair to John. As a committee chairman,
he's--he does have a right to prod the bureaucracy, which he did. I don't
know how far he went. I read the articles. We'll just have to see. But
people should, you know, give a little break here to John.
Look, John McCain is the same person this week that
he was a week ago. And I personally believe he's a person of integrity,
but I get a little tired of him saying that everybody else is in this
business just because of money.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: And Senator Hatch, thanks to you, and Steve
Forbes, for standing up to the New England winter for us this evening.
Coming up next: The first couple spent their first
night in their fancy New York pad, a rather large pad, not quite like the
White House, but a different kind, in the 'burbs of New York.
Keep it on THE EDGE. We'll take you there when we
come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAULA ZAHN, HOST: Well, the decision was made. But
it doesn't seem like it has been accepted.
Thousands of protesters packed the streets of Miami
furious because the INS said that 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez, who was
rescued from the ocean trying to flee Cuba, must go back to his Communist
homeland.
FOX's Jeff Goldblatt is in Miami.
What's been going on there tonight, Jeff?
JEFF GOLDBLATT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT
adjective: wild, surreal, crazy, spectacular. You'll find it all here on
the streets of Miami today, just one day after the INS ruled that Elian
Gonzalez must be returned to his father in Cuba.
Demonstrators took to the streets en masse. They
vowed yesterday to shut down the street. And that they certainly did
bringing the downtown area to its knees.
About midday, a peaceful protest spilled out onto
the streets as protesters snaked through the downtown. They arrived
eventually at the port area, succeeded in blocking that for about a couple
of hours. Police let protesters roam at will for about an hour before
reclaiming the streets.
Hundred arrests in total we understand. Those
arrests and the protests continuing throughout the streets of
Miami--pardon me, Paula--throughout the night here. And this scene could
be only a scene of things to come, the unrest here for the next couple of
days.
The INS has said Elian Gonzalez must be returned to
Cuba by next Friday. And so we still have a great deal of time left here
and a lot of people taking to this cause.
ZAHN: So are people still expecting this thing to
get really slowed down in the courts?
GOLDBLATT: The family of Elian, they sure hope so,
the family with whom he's been living since he arrived here in the U.S.
six weeks ago. They want to bog it down in courts. But it doesn't seem
like government officials in Washington are buying into this.
Attorney General Janet Reno said today that
essentially she will not overrule INS Commissioner Doris Meisner who
yesterday said that Elian Gonzalez must be returned to Cuba.
ZAHN: All right. Thanks, Jeff, so much for that
update tonight
GOLDBLATT: Sure.
ZAHN:
Appreciate your joining us.
And the plight of little Elian Gonzalez made a lot
of you sound off last night. Here's a sample.
CALLER: George, Billerica, Massachusetts. They are
risking their lives if this boy's mother died trying to do it. They are
leaving there for a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) damn reason. What the hell are we
sending the kid back there for now?
CALLER: Stacia. I live in New York City. I am a
Miami native born and raised. I can see both sides of the story and
understand where both sides of the family are coming from. Inevitably, I
do believe the boy belongs with his father.
CALLER: Donna Goodhart (ph) from Atlanta, Georgia. I
think that had this been a child who had escaped the Holocaust, we
wouldn't have sent him back to Germany or Auschwitz. And I think that's
exactly what we're doing.
CALLER: Ron Marquez, Sacramento, California. As
unfortunate as it is, the boy should be with his father. And it never
should have taken this long rather than being prodded with toys and
Disneyland trips and such.
CALLER: Jose, New York City, New York. I just find
it so interesting that Fidel Castro cares so much about children being
that his own daughter had to escape Cuba.
ZAHN: As you can see, you've looked at Elian
Gonzalez's story in a number of different ways. And as always, we
appreciate all of your feedback. So please, keep it coming.
And coming up next, it's been market madness for
"Time" magazine's Man of the Year. Amazon.com CEO and billionaire Jeff
Bezos stops by. Keep it on THE EDGE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAULA ZAHN, HOST: Jeff Bezos is "Time" magazine's
Person of the Year. I'm getting all choked up about it here, excuse me,
and CEO of the Internet retailer Amazon.com. Their web site has become a
household name. But not everyone had faith in the idea. Jeff Bezos once
said, ``If I had a nickel for every time a potential investor told me this
wouldn't work," well now he has more than 20 billion nickels. And Jeff
Bezos joins us from Seattle.
Good to see you. Congratulations.
JEFF BEZOS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMAZON.COM,
"TIME" MAGAZINE'S PERSON OF THE YEAR: Thank you. It's great to be here.
ZAHN: Well, you're known as a pretty low-key guy.
How are people treating the person of the year?
(LAUGHTER)
BEZOS: Well, when we found out, I went out to dinner
with my family to celebrate. And my mom cried. And it was very emotional
for my family.
It's very nice. Obviously a big honor, and we're
very grateful.
ZAHN: It was a wonderful thing to have happen to
you, particularly at such a turbulent time for your company. So let's talk
business for a moment.
Some analysts have suggested that your company has
lost 40 percent of its value in the last month or so. What happened?
BEZOS: Well, actually, I think Amazon--it's always
been a turbulent time for Amazon.com for the past four-and-a-half years.
And what happened is--I mean, the market is a very volatile market,
especially for Internet stocks, especially for Amazon.com. It always has
been.
And we're a very long-term oriented company. We make
all of our decisions for the long-term. We're focused on the customer.
We're investing for the customer experience.
Over the last 12 months, we've spent $300 million
investing in new distribution centers so that we'd be ready for the
holiday season. And we delivered well in excess of 99 percent of the
orders in time for the holiday season. We're the only retailer to do that
in any scale. And we're very proud of that performance.
ZAHN: So for people who don't
BEZOS: So we're happy with the way it's going.
ZAHN: follow the Internet trading business all
that closely, can you explain to them why these businesses are so hot when
they're hemorrhaging so much cash?
BEZOS: Well, one of the things that's happening is
that companies are investing for the future. So if you look at Amazon.com,
for example, we think this is a critical category formation time. We're
not--we're investing. New customers are coming online. We're investing in
these new distribution centers I talked about, new customer service
facilities, whole new categories.
Eighteen months ago, we were selling exclusively
U.S. books. Now we also sell toys. We have a complete toy store. We have a
complete tool store, a complete electronics store. And these stores have
been rated by various parties as the best place to buy these particular
things online. Making that kind of best of breed customer experience is
hard.
ZAHN: What do you say to your critics who say you
simply are spreading yourself too thin?
BEZOS: Well, I think that the sales numbers that we
turn in and the fact that we have well in excess of 15 million customers
now who've shopped at Amazon.com demonstrate that that's wrong. But the
thing that I would really say is go to www.amazon.com and check it out.
You'll see for yourself that it's working and working well.
ZAHN: I checked it out all right. And I also was
looking at Barnes and Noble's stock today. And I noticed it went up six
percent with the announcement that it has gone into a deal with Microsoft
to use their technology to create digital books. Isn't that a pretty good
idea?
BEZOS: Oh, I think digital books is a fantastic idea
and
ZAHN: Do you wish you had done it first?
BEZOS:
No, no, no. First of all, digital books
is a wonderful idea whose time hasn't quite come yet. Digital books is
going to be a very big deal though. You know, the computer displays are
not quite as good as paper yet. Paper turns out to still be the best
display advice. But Amazon.com will be heavily involved in digital books.
ZAHN: How far away are you from doing that?
BEZOS: Well, I think that what you'll see as with
all these things is they're not light switches. They're not things that
turn on-and off with a single switch.
This will be something that will happen
incrementally over five years. If you look out 10-plus years, I think the
majority of books may even be electronic.
ZAHN: I've got to tell you, I'm one of those people
that loves getting newsprint of my newspaper all over my face, all over my
kids' faces. I can't believe that all of us are going to get used to the
idea of reading books digitally.
BEZOS: Well, I'm sure you're
ZAHN: Do you really think the books of yesterday are
gone?
BEZOS: No, I'm sure you're right in fact that
all of us won't. And it will be a mixture. And it will be a continuum. And
it will happen very slowly.
ZAHN: And when do you think it's realistic that we
will be reading our books online?
BEZOS: Well, I think before it's a significant
fraction of the market you're talking about three to five years before
it's even sort of double-digit percentages and maybe even longer. By the
time maybe it's 10-plus years before it's a significant, you know, really
big fraction.
ZAHN: OK, back to stock prices. Do you think your
stock is fairly priced?
BEZOS: I have no idea. And that's not--it's very
interesting. And it's a great question. And it's one I get asked a lot.
But my job and the job of the management team at
Amazon.com is to try and build an important and lasting company. Wall
Street analysts and investors have what I think is often an even harder
job, which is to figure out how much such a company is worth when. And I
don't envy them that job.
ZAHN: You no doubt know a president of a major
technology firm came out several weeks ago and said technology stocks were
way overpriced. And I've also heard people in your community say the same
of Internet stocks. What is the trend?
BEZOS: Well, one thing you know for sure is that the
stocks are volatile. And I think that's enough to warn off most small
investors.
I've been for a long time now recommending that
small investors not invest in Amazon.com except maybe the smallest portion
of their portfolio just on the basis of the volatility. Amazon.com, like
all Internet stocks, can be up 20 percent in a day or down 20 percent in a
day or more. And for a small investor I think a very good investment
criteria should be the ability to sleep well at night.
ZAHN: Can you do that now? How much money have you
lost on paper over the last month or so?
(LAUGHTER)
ZAHN: Come on, you're among friends here, Jeff. You
can share with us.
BEZOS: I'm sure it's a matter of public record. I
honestly don't know. And it's very unimportant because measuring
Amazon.com's stock-price performance over a period as short as a month is
completely meaningless.
What we're doing is we're focused on the long term,
building what we hope will be a lasting company. And you do that by
focusing on customers, which is what we do obsessively, why we offer such
low prices and such big selection.
ZAHN: Well, it was good of you to join us so late in
the evening. Appreciate it again. Congratulations.
BEZOS: It's my pleasure.
ZAHN: "Time" magazine's Man of the Year--I think
you should have like a crown or something
(LAUGHTER)
ZAHN:
to signify that this honor has been
bestowed upon you.
BEZOS: Thank you.
ZAHN: OK, thanks again for your time.
And that wraps it up for us tonight here at THE
EDGE. Thank you very much for being with us.
And remember, if you want the edge, watch THE EDGE.
Have a great night. See you tomorrow. Please join us then.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:04:00.00
SUBJECT: FOX Hannity & Colmes, January 6, 2000
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich ( CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher ( CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez ( CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maura M. Pally ( CN=Maura M. Pally/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith ( CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison ( CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier (CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan (CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li (CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( (CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum ( CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Scott Hynes (CN=Scott Hynes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez (CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan ( CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird ( CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield (CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP OA
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis(CN=Laura J.Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer (CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine ( CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G.Attie/O=OVP@OVP [UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland (CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
FOX NEWS' "HANNITY & COLMES"
JANUARY 6, 2000
SPEAKERS: SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST
ALAN KEYES, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Republican
presidential candidates, Ambassador Alan Keyes. How are you, sir?
U.S. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
STEVE FORBES, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
KEYES: Pretty good. How are you?
HANNITY: A little combative, contentious with Tim Russert on a
couple of occasions, you guys battling for air time sort of like what me
and Colmes do here.
COLMES: Yeah.
HANNITY: Ambassador, what did you think?
KEYES: Well, I think that that was a problem with the format
tonight. We actually had protested it when they put it together. I think
it's good to have exchanges. But they need to be moderated so that people
don't have to fight for the floor.
It is not right. It's not consistent with the dignity of a
presidential race. This should not turn into some kind of Jerry Springer
presentation.
HANNITY: And did you feel it was?
KEYES: We're talking about the choice of the individual who's
going to occupy the most serious office in this nation's life. And I think
the debates around that ought to be conducted with more decorum. And I
thought tonight's debate in the Russert section
HANNITY: Well, one other
KEYES:
the part I think about the Tim Russert show kind of
got out of hand.
HANNITY: All right, one of the criticisms, though, of these
debates though, Ambassador, that there's not enough give and take, there's
not enough freedom for people to come in. And people have defined them as
joint press conferences. Was this an effort maybe to get away from that
format, make it a little more freewheeling? I happen to like it better. I
thought tonight's debate by far was
KEYES: Yeah, but
HANNITY: the most lively, most interesting. I got more out
of it
KEYES: This is not--no
HANNITY:
And I want to see people challenged.
KEYES: I'm sorry, that's not true. I don't believe one got
more out of that section.
HANNITY: Yeah.
KEYES: This is not a gladiatorial combat. Right? This is
something where each individual should have an opportunity to address
HANNITY: But Ambassador, I want you to be able
KEYES:
the issues (inaudible)
HANNITY: I want you to be able to look in the eye
KEYES:
I have no problem
HANNITY:
of George Bush and challenge him
KEYES:
No, excuse me, Sean
HANNITY: And that's what I liked about tonight's debate
(inaudible).
KEYES:
I have no problem with this format.
HANNITY: OK.
KEYES: I do very well in it
HANNITY:
KEYES: Steve Forbes had a problem, and that's not fair
HANNITY:
right.
KEYES: OK? Others had a problem, and it's not fair. We
shouldn't be judging people on the basis
HANNITY: All right
KEYES: of whether or not they can
HANNITY: there
KEYES:
let me finish, sir
HANNITY: Go ahead. Go ahead.
KEYES:
of whether they can wrestle their way into some free
for all
HANNITY: All right, well, let me go to
KEYES: We should allow--we should allow a format that gives
these gentlemen
HANNITY: (inaudible)
KEYES: a chance to have their say. And tonight's format let
Tim Russert run roughshod over people and then had the whole thing
dissolve
HANNITY: All right
KEYES: into a little bit of chaos because people refused to
let him do it. It wasn't right.
HANNITY: let me ask you, you used the term "where have all
the conservatives gone?" And a big part of this debate became the issue
of gays in the military. And you were the only candidate up there that
said the current policy--don't ask, don't tell--is wrong. We should say
it's wrong. And we should say that gays shouldn't serve in the military.
One clear distinction between you and your fellow candidates.
KEYES: Well, I think it is a clear distinction. But I think we
have a lot of folks, including everybody else in this race apparently who
doesn't understand the seriousness both of the homosexual challenge to our
national security where it seriously affects morale and discipline.
Senator McCain kept talking about the leadership. The political
general who are going to cow-tow to their political masters may go along
with this stuff. That doesn't mean that the rank-and-file troops, that
doesn't mean that the people who are actually having to do these things on
the front line. I know better. I know that they don't appreciate it
HANNITY: All right
KEYES: I know that it's causing tension and difficulty. I
know that people are leaving the military in droves because of the
demoralization that results
HANNITY:
let me
KEYES: We shouldn't let this happen.
HANNITY: Let me ask you to dovetail. Dealing with cultural
issues, you had an opportunity to ask Senator John McCain a question. You
asked him about his answer to a previous question about a rock band. And
he said his favorite was Nine Inch Nails. What did you think of his answer
tonight?
KEYES: I thought his answer was totally inadequate tonight. And
it also showed that he's not really serious at all about the challenge
that we face on the moral front.
You don't make light of the influence that is had by these
groups. We know that they contribute to declining morality,
licentiousness, violence. Therefore, if somebody asks you what your
favorite rock group is, you don't name one and give credibility to one
that is actually among the worst offenders in the cesspool that can
sometimes be out there.
You could name Point of Grace. You could name other groups that
are actually wholesome, good music, popular, contemporary. You don't have
to pick the
COLMES: We know--we know that
KEYES: worst devils and make jokes about it. It's not
funny. It really isn't.
COLMES: Well, you know, we know that Senator McCain is not
grooving to Nine Inch Nails while you're talking to HANNITY & COLMES.
Listen
(LAUGHTER)
COLMES:
would you--I made him laugh. Can you believe it? I
made Alan Keyes laugh. Would you
HANNITY: By the way, Nine Inch Nails is his favorite group.
It's
COLMES: No it's not. You wouldn't vote for Tim Russert,
though. You wouldn't support him as a candidate I'm guessing, right?
(LAUGHTER)
COLMES: It wouldn't happen.
KEYES: Well, I wouldn't want to anticipate the process. If he
declares
COLMES: Look, I think he was doing his job. You know, it's
tough to be a--just a on HANNITY & COLMES, we're always fighting for time.
You're always trying to
KEYES: Well
COLMES: control six different Republican candidates
KEYES: Alan, Alan
COLMES:
all of whom want a piece of the pie is very tough.
KEYES:
Alan, come on. Come on, Alan. What he was doing was
shilling for Bush and McCain. He kept
COLMES: Oh, you believe that?
KEYES:
in the beginning of the debate when we were supposed
to be giving questions to individual people, he would go down the line.
And every time somebody gave an answer, he turned back to Governor Bush.
Why? On what basis?
COLMES: No, no
KEYES: It totally violated the format. And it was being done I
think at the behest of the Bush campaign.
COLMES: Dr. Keyes
KEYES: Is that an unbiased media representative?
COLMES:
You know, Tim Russert
KEYES: I hardly think so.
COLMES: he's on a competing network. But I think he's one
of the best interviewers in the business. And I also think to say that he
was shilling--to sacrifice his credibility to shill for two of the
candidates is a very serious charge. You really believe that?
KEYES: He did it. I didn't do it. And don't tell me that I have
to do something. Anybody who watched that debate and had eyes knew exactly
what was going on and saw it from the beginning.
So it's not an assertion on my part, Alan. You watched the
debate. You can see what happened.
COLMES: You know, there's a perception about you that whatever
question gets asked, the answer always involves God, morality, and a
diminution of how we're doing as part of the pop culture. Do you feel that
you might have--I know you're not going to say you focus too much on that.
But can you understand why there might be that perception of you because
almost every question results in that kind of answer?
KEYES: I have said quite seriously and I deeply believe the
moral crisis is the top priority this nation faces. When your house is
burning down, when the foundations are crumbling, if somebody stands in
front of the burning house and shouts ``fire, fire," you don't look at
the flaming house and say, "Why are you obsessed with fire?"
That's what you're doing here. I tell you the house is burning
down. I keep saying ``fire, fire," and you say, ``Alan, why do you keep
saying `fire, fire"?" Well I'll tell you, it's because the house is
burning down
COLMES: All right, we only have
KEYES: And so that crisis is the one we need to address.
And yes, I keep coming back to it because that's where we should be
focusing our attention.
COLMES:
We only have a moment left here before we get to
break. Let me ask you, maybe we can agree on this, Elian Gonzalez, the boy
from Cuba, should he go back or should he stay in America?
KEYES: I think that that is properly up to his father if his
father in fact has been properly meeting his parental obligation. The
bonds of family should not be superceded by political and ideological
concerns. We should respect those bonds.
God decides what country we are born in, some people in
America, some people in Cuba. But your father is your father. And the only
objection I have to the INS decision--and it's a strong one--is that we
don't know that that father has made a free decision
COLMES: The father wanted the boy, was OK with the boy coming
here
KEYES: And until we do, until we do
COLMES:
and then changed his view about it.
KEYES: excuse me, until we know that the father has made a
true and free decision
HANNITY: All right
KEYES: the boy should stay in America.
HANNITY: Ambassador Alan Keyes, thank you for joining us.
Good job on-the debate tonight.
KEYES: Thank you.
HANNITY: You'll be back here tomorrow night after tomorrow's
debate.
KEYES: Yes indeed.
HANNITY: And we wish you well tomorrow night as always.
END
SPEAKERS: SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST
U.S. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
HANNITY: Now joining us from New Hampshire, Republican
presidential candidate Senator Orrin Hatch is with us.
Senator, are you declaring yourself the winner?
(LAUGHTER)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, I'll let
you do that. And I hope you will.
I think we did OK because it was kind of an unruly bunch. But
you know
HANNITY: Yeah.
HATCH: I think I'm the only one that really just treated
everybody fairly and well.
HANNITY: I thought this was the best debate so far. It was
lively. It was passionate.
You were lively and passionate, Senator, more than you have
been in the other debates. And I thought you did a terrific job, I really
did. And compared to Gore and Bradley
HATCH: Thank you.
HANNITY: all of you guys are a better choice. We'll get
into that.
Listen, a couple of things came up tonight, and I wasn't clear
on your position. A lot of talk about gays in the military in this debate
tonight. And I'm not--I still wasn't sure of your position. Now you did
get cut off at that point. But what is your position specifically?
HATCH: I'm against having active gays in the military. If
they're not going to live the moral lives of the military, they shouldn't
be in the military.
But on the other hand, I'm against preventing anybody who's a
citizen of this country from serving this country if they're going to live
the laws.
HANNITY: Don't ask, don't tell?
HATCH: But keep in mind--yeah, I think don't ask, don't tell is
the best we can do right now. But keep in mind, I said look, if I'm
president of the United States I will not expect the people in the
military to live a law that I'm not willing to live
HANNITY: Yeah.
HATCH: because everybody knows I'm willing to live a
straight-laced life.
HANNITY: All right, another issue that came up and I wasn't
sure of your position, and I just want to clarify it if I can
HATCH: Sure.
HANNITY: And I will say in your defense there was al to of
back and forth, so it was hard to get positions at times. The issue of
this Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez became a big part of tonight's debate. You
used the term ``what is in the best interests of the child," but you
didn't define it. What is in the best interests of Elian Gonzalez?
HATCH: Well, let me just tell you this. And I practiced law
many years before I came to the Senate. And I had some child custody cases
where we had to battle it out in court and determine what was in the best
interests of the child.
And I can tell you this. In every case, I worked for the best
interests of the child. And that's what this system ought to do.
Castro ought to butt out. All of these politicians and
political types ought to butt out
HANNITY: Should he stay?
HATCH: And we ought to let our system that works determine
what's in the best interests of this child. And if being with his father
is in the best interests, fine. If not being with his father
HANNITY: All right
HATCH: because his mother sacrificed her life
HANNITY: right.
HATCH: to come over here, then that's fine with me too.
HANNITY: Based on your knowledge of the case, Senator, what is
in the best interests of the child in this controversial case?
HATCH: Well, I think it's too early to tell. You know, I think
that INS has done what INS really probably is bound to do. But INS knows
that that's going to be appealed and taken to the courts.
The courts then are geared up and ready to do what's right
here
HANNITY: All right
HATCH: And I have confidence that they'll do what's right
here
HANNITY: Let me
HATCH: My own personal belief is that
HANNITY: Yeah.
HATCH: normally there's a presumption in favor of the
remaining parent.
HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I don't know if you had an
opportunity to watch Gore and Bradley debate last night
HATCH: I didn't. I did not.
HANNITY: OK. Believe me, you didn't miss much. They--more
big government programs, nationalizing healthcare, taking shots at the
Republicans, that's about all it was.
HATCH: Those two guys
HANNITY: It's all predictable.
HATCH: Those two guys are going to spend over $1.5 trillion
as we sit here
HANNITY: That's what I want to know. That's what
HATCH: It's unbelievable.
HANNITY: Nationalized healthcare, why is it bad?
HATCH: Well, it's bad because we'll be the same as most other
states with nationalized healthcare where if you need a hip transplant it
takes three years to get it. Or if you need a knee transplant it takes
three years to get it. Or if you have a heart condition, it might take six
months before you can get any help there.
I mean, it's ridiculous. Any time you put your faith in the
central government totally, then the central government controls your
life
COLMES: You say central government
HATCH: I've got to tell you, our system of healthcare is
the best there is. You're looking at the guy that put home healthcare into
existence. It works. You're looking at the guy that brought pharmaceutical
prices down through creating the modern generic drug industry. It works.
You're looking at the guy that just recently at the last
session of this Congress actually saved the
COLMES: Senator
HATCH: nursing home industry
COLMES: Senator Hatch, I don't want to be like
HATCH: Now, we had to do it the right way
COLMES: I don't want to be like the debate where you get
cut off.
HATCH: That's all right.
COLMES:
But we've got to move forward here
HATCH: Sure.
COLMES: Look, I think eventually there's going to be more
national healthcare. I think people need it. Many people use the emergency
room as their first line of attack when they have to get help. And that
costs the taxpayer more money than it would if they had coverage.
HATCH: Well, keep in mind there is a place for government. When
people cannot help themselves but would if they could, then government
ought to come in and health. But you know, the problem with nationalized
healthcare is we're helping a lot of people who can help themselves but
won't and expect government to do everything for them
COLMES: I think there's a good marriage there somewhere.
HATCH: When you start--there is a good marriage. But when
you start moving in that direction where we're helping too many people who
won't help themselves but could help themselves, then that's the direction
of centralized (inaudible).
COLMES: Well, I think the Democrats have talked about those
people who can't help themselves. But I want to move on to something
else
HATCH: No, they're not. No, they're not. They want to cover
everybody no matter what. Now why would we cover everybody with regard to
pharmaceuticals when two-thirds of them have private insurance?
Why wouldn't we make that system work and cover those in a drug
benefit package that would take care of those who literally can't help
themselves (inaudible).
COLMES: Well, I'll tell you what Bill Bradley has said. He
wants to give everybody the same care that you get as a senator
HATCH: Well, so do I.
COLMES: the same care that the government workers get.
HATCH: Well, now Alan, so do I. And you know that because I've
said it before on your program that I believe that everybody ought to be
able to get the best healthcare.
But to be honest with you, mine's a combination of private and
government. And have to say I would hope that everybody in America could
have adequate healthcare
HANNITY: Senator
HATCH: And most people do. You're also looking at the guy
that put the child health insurance program through, the CHIP bill that
every governor now takes credit for, not one of which supported it, except
Governor Dean of Vermont when we did it
HANNITY: Senator
HATCH: And that now is going to take care of seven million
kids who are the poorest of the poor kids
HANNITY: Senator
HATCH: not on Medicaid whose parents work.
HANNITY: we are out of time. But it's always a pleasure,
sir
HATCH: Oh, come on.
HANNITY: Great job on the debates
(LAUGHTER)
COLMES: He's just getting rolling. What are you talking about?
HATCH: We're just getting going here.
(LAUGHTER)
HATCH: It's great to see you guys.
HANNITY: You're welcome back any time.
END
SPEAKERS: SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST
STEVE FORBES, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Mr. Forbes, I think you had once again probably the funniest line
tonight about hugging John. But what about that issue that this is your
second run for president, you're polling at around in the single digits
still. Shouldn't you be doing better by this point given how familiar the
American people may be with you?
FORBES: Well, actually, I think the American people are just
beginning to pay attention to this race after the holidays. They're
certainly doing it in New Hampshire and Iowa.
And as we speak, we're getting support in both of those states.
That's the purpose of a campaign is to get your message out. And I have a
more powerful message, more substance, more bold ideas than all of the
other candidates put together.
And tonight in this debate, we've got a first inkling of a real
substantive fight and issue. And that is on the issue of taxes. Senator
McCain has come in with a very small tax cut. George Bush has come in with
a very convolute and fairly small tax cut. I'm on the only major candidate
who's proposing getting rid of this tax code and giving working Americans
a substantial tax cut now, not some vague promise in the future.
COLMES: Right. You're talking about a 17 percent flat tax with
a $13,000 exemption for adults and $5,000 for children
FORBES: That's right.
COLMES:
And some economists say that's not going to meet
the deficit gap. That would not pay all the bills.
FORBES: Well, actually it would end up raising more revenue
because when you reduce the burden on the American people, on working
Americans, what happens? You get more activity, more investment, more
productivity, better paying jobs. Remember, in the early '60s, John
Kennedy reduced tax rates, proposed reducing them 20 percent. The revenues
didn't go down 20 percent
HANNITY: They went up.
FORBES: They went up, and the economy boomed.
HANNITY: Same with Reagan.
FORBES: Same as in the early 1980s. And so that's what we're
going to do-today for this new era. We're going to reduce the burden, get
rid of this crazy tax code and unleash the energies of the American people
and give working Americans a real break.
HANNITY: Mr. Forbes, welcome back to the program. Glad to have
you. You did a great job tonight.
FORBES: Thank you.
HANNITY: And compared to those other guys last night, you guys
were all on target. So I applaud you.
You took a few jabs at George W. Bush. You said that he would
keep the current tax code and that he's offering Clinton-Gore light, I
think was the phrase you used.
And then Gary Bauer challenged you and said, ``Well, you're
getting rid of the mortgage deduction and charitable contributions." How
do you respond to those things?
FORBES: Well, in terms of what George Bush has proposed, it's
very clear. It's a five-to eight-year phase in of fairly small tax cuts.
Making people go through hoops and loops to figure out what they qualify
for just keeps the current code in place. And we've tried that for 30, 40
years. It doesn't work
HANNITY: Yeah.
FORBES:
So we ought to get rid of it and give people a real
tax cut, real break, real incentives right now.
HANNITY: Let me
FORBES: In terms on the business side, if you don't allow the
farmer, if you don't allow the small business person to recover their
investment, you destroy them. As a businessman, I understand it. Gary, as
I said in the debates, has got some educating to do.
HANNITY: You had a couple of good lines. There's no doubt. I'll
ask him about it when he joins us in a few minutes.
The boy Elian Gonzalez. You had very strong language. You said
Bill Clinton is sacrificing this boy to Fidel Castro
FORBES: That's right.
HANNITY: Those are harsh words.
FORBES: No they weren't because just as we would not return a
child to Adolf Hitler, we would not return a child to Stalin's Russia, why
in the world would we return a child to Castro's Cuba? The man is a
tyrant.
HANNITY: We're almost out of time. What about the right of the
father, though? Are we deciding that this father never sees his son again?
FORBES: The mother has custody. She sacrificed her life to get
this boy to the United States. The father is in a dictatorial country
under severe pressure. Let him come here for a while and make a decision.
You know he would stay if he had that kind of freedom.
HANNITY: I bet--you know what? I agree with you. And I wish
Castro would give him that opportunity.
And I agree. But are we then deciding that a boy never sees his
father again? It's a very tough issue.
COLMES: Mr. Forbes
FORBES: Castro is not going to be around forever. The Communist
regime
HANNITY: Thank God for that.
FORBES: there will fall just as it fell in the Soviet
Union.
COLMES: Thank you, Mr. Forbes. I actually agree with you on the
Castro issue.
FORBES: Thank you.
COLMES: Thank you for being with us tonight. Appreciate your
time. Hope to see you again soon.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:05:01.00
SUBJECT: CNN Inside Politics, January 6, 2000
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich (CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher ( CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez (CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maura M. Pally (CN=Maura M. Pally/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith ( CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison ( CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP[ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP[NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF WHO 1).
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol ( CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li ( CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre (CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega ( CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein (CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum ( CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Scott Hynes (CN=Scott Hynes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez ( CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan ( CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer (CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine (CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN]]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne (CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
CNN Inside Politics
Aired January 6, 2000 - 5:00 p.m. ET
Debate Gives Bush Forum to Drive Home Differences With
McCain; Democrats Return to Campaign Trail After Testy
Debate; Buchanan Criticizes Ruling Tying Debate
Appearances to Poll Numbers
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT BUCHANAN (REF), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's like
Coke and Pepsi saying no other soft drink can enter the
market unless they
meet a certain criteria. That's preposterous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERNARD SHAW, CNN ANCHOR: Pat Buchanan takes aim at a
special
commission's decision likely to bar him from
presidential debates this fall.
Also ahead:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
Hopefully be able to talk about the difference of ideas
that we may have.
There's a difference between a chief executive officer
and someone from the
legislative branch.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: George W. Bush prepares to drive home his
differences with John
McCain in tonight's Republican presidential debate.
The Democrats keep trying to one-up each other a day
after their face-off in
New Hampshire.
Plus, a portrait of happy homeowners. Details of the
Clintons' first night in
their new digs.
ANNOUNCER: From Washington, this is INSIDE POLITICS,
with Judy
Woodruff and Bernard Shaw.
SHAW: Thanks for joining us. Judy is off today.
Six Republicans will debate in New Hampshire tonight,
but in the minds of
many voters there, it will be a showdown between
candidates: George W.
Bush and John McCain. And this time around, there are
signs McCain might
find himself on the defensive about whether he has
walked the walk for
campaign finance reform. CNN's Candy Crowley joins us
from the debate
site in Durham, New Hampshire -- Candy.
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL
CORRESPONDENT: Bernie, this is the fourth debate that
all six of the
Republican candidates have participated in, but you're
right. Really, the two
men of the hour are John McCain and George Bush. We go
into this debate
with a little bit of a problem for McCain. He hasn't
seen much. But now
there are these reports, and he confirms, that he has
written a letter to the
FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, on behalf of
the a
campaign contributor who was trying to get a television
license.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was
trying to see that a bureaucracy did its job, which is
under my oversight. But
again, I fully understand that with all of these
hundreds of thousands and
millions of dollars of money that's washing around in
Washington in the
control of special interests that we're all under
suspicion. It renews my vigor
for campaign finance reform.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: McCain says in the letter he did not advocate
that his
contributor get the TV license, he merely tried to push
the bureaucracy
around and did absolutely nothing around.
As for George Bush, he was peppered with questions about
the McCain
problem. He demurred.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Senator McCain must answer these questions.
Senator McCain is
the chairman of a very powerful committee in the United
States Senate. He's
a committee chairman. He has been there for a period of
time to the point
where he could earn this chairmanship, and he, you know,
you ask him these
questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CROWLEY: As you can see by Bush's attempt to paint
McCain as a
Washington insider, the relationship between Bush and
McCain, which thus
far has been very cordial, seems to be fraying around
the edges a bit. But
Bush says as far as he's concerned the gloves are still
on. He says he wants
this to remain a civil campaign. McCain says the same
thing.
So tonight, the fourth debate between these two men.
What Bush will try to
do, he says, is to accentuate some of the differences
between himself and the
senator. Primarily that will be around the tax cut.
McCain has said that
Bush's tax cut is too much. Bush is prepared to note
that difference and to
stand on the plan he's put out -- Bernie.
SHAW: OK, Candy Crowley from the site.
The Republicans will appear on the same New Hampshire
stage where Al
Gore and Bill Bradley exchanged often sharp words last
night.
Today, the Democrats returned to the campaign trail,
apparently pumped up
by their debate performances, as CNN's Jonathan Karl
reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL BRADLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Are you cold?
Let's see if I can warm you up.
JONATHAN KARL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For an
energized Bill Bradley, Boston's Faneuil Hall was the
backdrop for a chilly
post-debate rally that attracted more than 500
supporters.
BRADLEY: This campaign is based on the radical premise
that you can go
out and tell people what you believe and get elected.
KARL: Bradley picked up the endorsements of more than 50
local
Massachusetts politicians in what the campaign billed as
a counterpoint to
Gore's endorsement from the king of Massachusetts
Democrats, Teddy
Kennedy. Here, Bradley did not even mention his opponent
by name,
keeping it positive in contrast to Wednesday night's
debate.
BRADLEY: I think you're in the Washington bunker. And I
can understand
why you're in the bunker. I mean, there's Gingrich,
there was the fund-raising
scandal, there was the impeachment problem. And I think
that the major
objective in the last several years in the White House
has been political
survival. I understand that. But the reality is the
Democratic Party shouldn't
be in the Washington bunker with you.
KARL: Gore responded with his familiar charge that he
stayed in
Washington to fight, in contrast to Bradley, who left
the Senate after the
Republicans took control of Congress.
Gore used the debate clarify his offer of
mutually-forgoing TV ads, saying he
would do it just in New Hampshire, where Bradley holds a
lead in several
polls.
AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we had
to
rely on actually being the details of the policies, not
just once every while but
twice a week, every week until the nomination is
decided, I think we might
have a chance to really elevate the tone of our
democracy. I mean it,
seriously.
BRADLEY: You know, Al, your underdog pitch brings tears
to my eyes.
GORE: Well, I hope that my upset victory brings tears to
your eyes on
February 1st.
KARL: But Gore has stepped up his New Hampshire ad
campaign.
Although so far Bradley has outspent Gore in New
Hampshire by nearly a
two-to-one margin, with a new ad running today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: And that's why I propose training 60,000 new
teachers a year
for the next 10 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: By the end of the week, the Bradley campaign says
it will have spent
$2 million on TV ads geared towards New Hampshire.
(on camera): Gore and Bradley now turn their attention
to lowa, where
Gore still holds a commanding lead in the polls. That
lead will get a test this
weekend, as the two candidates face off in their first
lowa debate.
Jonathan Karl, CNN, Boston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: Let's talk about the Democrats' debate and
tonight's Republican
face-off with Richard Berke of "The New York Times" --
he joins us from
Durham, New Hampshire -- and Robert Novak of "The Chicago
Sun-Times." He's here in Washington.
Rick, first to you. In your judgment, what were Gore and
Bradley trying to
do on that stage last night and appeal to whom?
RICHARD BERKE, "NEW YORK TIMES": They were both trying to
appeal.to the liberal wing of the party. I was struck,
Bernie, by the fact that
they both said, asked about whether they would apply a
litmus test in their
appointment of Joint Chiefs of Staff, a litmus test on
gays in the military, they
didn't necessarily agree with the word litmus test, but
they both said they
would agree with that concept.
And they both also were asked about the liberal label
and if they would
accept that for themselves. And they both said, call me
whatever you want.
They didn't reject the liberal label, something you
never would have heard
out of from Bill Clinton while he was running for
president.
So they're both really appealing to the farthest left
wing of the party, the core
Democratic loyal voters.
SHAW: Let's go to the exchange you just referred to. The
question was,
would they require their appointees to the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to fully
support allowing gays in the military?
Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORE: I would insist, before appointing anybody to the
Joint Chiefs of
Staff, that that individual support my policy. And, yes,
I would make that a
requirement.
PETER JENNINGS, MODERATOR: Mr. Bradley, would you, sir?
BRADLEY: I can say it in much shorter words, I think.
And that is when
you're president, you are commander in chief. And you
issue orders. And
soldiers are good soldiers, and they follow your orders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Now, Bob Novak, your assessment of what Gore and
Bradley
were trying to do on that stage last night in New
Hampshire and appeal to
whom.
ROBERT NOVAK, "CHICAGO SUN-TIMES": Well, Richard is
correct.
They are trying to appeal to the left wing of the party,
the base of the party,
as they call it. I thought that Vice President Gore went
farther than Senator
Bradley on the gays in the military. He said he would do
a litmus test.
Bradley just said well they all obey orders. Maybe
that's a distinction without
a difference.
But, Bernie, I've talked to some old-time Democratic
politicians today, and
they were very concerned about this debate and the way
this whole
campaign is going, because they believe that these sound
bites are going to
be stored and used by the Republicans in the fall. They
question whether
taking those positions really helps either one of them
that much in the
campaign, and -- in the primary -- and it could hurt
quite a bit in the general
election.
SHAW: Now, Bob and Rick, let's look at one of the
humorous moments of
that debate, when Bradley was asked about his reputation
for being aloof.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: Am I aloof? I'm not aloof at all.
JENNY ATTIYEH, NHPTV: Let me finish.
BRADLEY: The best thing I like about politics is going
out and meeting
people. I've just finished my 46th town meeting in New
Hampshire. You
can't be aloof in a New Hampshire town meeting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Bob?
NOVAK: One other sound bite that wasn't used, Bernie,
was Vice
President Gore saying, there, is that aloof again? By --
I suppose in jest, but
nothing is in jest in these debates -- in regard to
Bradley. Gore is so poised
to seize on anything that Bradley does wrong. I think
this was a superior
performance by Gore, compared to the "Meet the Press"
performance,
when he was rolling his eyes and sighing and all that
sort of thing. But I do
believe that he still comes off as much more tight, much
less relaxed than
Bradley, and that's an opinion that is shared by some of
his own supporters.
SHAW: Rick Berke, what's the watch word for the
Republicans tonight
where you are? BERKE: I think it's going to be
fascinating to watch the
dynamics between Governor Bush and Senator McCain. Their
last debate, it
was practically a love fest between the two of them, so
much so that I went
and wrote a story about their relationship the next day
because it was
striking to me how they went out of their way to praise
each other and say
how great the other was.
You're not going to see that -- I don't think we will
see that tonight. I think
we're getting down to the wire. We're getting into a
very competitive race
where already they are questioning each other's tax cut
plans, Social
Security plans, so forth. So I think we're going to see
the gloves may start
coming off tonight for the first time in a debate
format.
NOVAK: That's quite correct, and there's going to be an
emphasis, Bernie,
on this tax cut question. Senator McCain made his first
serious tactical
mistake in the campaign. This is a Republican primary,
and he's worried
about having a tax cut for the rich, and instead saving
Social Security. That
sounds like Al Gore. I guarantee you that Governor Bush
is going to attack
Senator McCain on that tonight.
The question is, will Senator McCain back off from the
idea that tax cuts for
the -- for people who have been successful in this
world, are improvident
and unwise? Because there are some of his supporters who
feel he has to
get off that position if he is going to get Republican
as well as independent
votes in New Hampshire.
SHAW: Robert Novak of the "Chicago Sun-Times."
And Rick Berke - very quickly from you.
BERKE: I was just going to say I think you're also going
to see McCain
asked about the whole campaign finance questions that
you talked about
earlier. You know, he's trying to be the reformer in
this state, can -- I don't
think Bush himself will bring it up, but I would expect
the questioners to, and
that's going to certainly be an issue tonight.
SHAW: Well, we'll be watching. Richard Berke of "The New
York Times,"
Bob Novak of the "Sun Times" and "THE CAPITOL GANG."
Thanks very
much.
And still ahead here on INSIDE POLITICS, we are going to
talk to Pat
Buchanan about something he and Donald Trump actually
agree on. They
are fuming about a new move that makes it very hard for
third- party
candidates to take part in presidential debates. We'll
have extended
coverage of the decision by the presidential debates
commission, and we'll
tell you what it may mean for the party that Ross Perot
built.
This is INSIDE POLITICS.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: When the Republican and Democratic presidential
nominees debate
one another this fall, it now seems unlikely that a
Reform Party candidate will
be on the stage with them. A special commission
announced new criteria
today for participation in those debates.
CNN's Jeanne Meserve begins our coverage of a decision
that may cause
serious problems for the already fractured Reform Party.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAUL KIRK, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATES: The candidate, regardless of party, regardless
of affiliation, have
a level of support of at least 15 percent of the
prospective voters in the
general election.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With
that, the Commission on Presidential Debates settled one
of the most
controversial issues of campaign 2000: How a candidate
gets a seat in the
all-important fall debates.
One week before the first debate, the commission will
take an average of
five polls: CNN/"USA Today" Gallup, NBC/"Wall Street
Journal,"
CBS/"New York Times," ABC News/"Washington Post," and Fox
News/"Opinion Dynamics." Anyone with 15 percent or more
gets into the
October 3rd debate, as well as the vice presidential
debate two days later.
Everyone else is cut out.
The commission will repeat the exercise for the last two
debates. It's a major
change from 1996, when a far more complex formula was
used to exclude
Ross Perot. Perot sued the commission and lost. But the
criticism stung, and
this time the commission decided to keep it simple.
FRANK FAHRENKOPF, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: So there's no question of anyone
being able
to hide the ball, change the results. The results are
out there. They're very
transparent.
MESERVE: Meeting that 15 percent standard could be
critical to this year's
Reform Party nominee. The last time a third-party
candidate got into the
debates was 1992.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1992)
ROSS PEROT (I), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And you are
going to
hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of
this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: Perot took 19 percent in that election, but
four years later, after
he was excluded, Perot got just nine percent.
Whether Perot's poor showing was a result of his
exclusion is an open
question, but there are certainly examples of long-shot
candidates boosting
their polls with a good debate performance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1998) JESSE VENTURA (REF), MINNESOTA
GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: What is matter with industrial
hemp?
There's a product that will create new jobs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: In the 1998 Minnesota governor's race, Reform
Party
candidate Jesse Ventura was going nowhere until he was
allowed into the
debates. And the rest is history.
Pat Buchanan is a skilled debater. Here he is in a 1996
GOP primary
debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, 1996)
PAT BUCHANAN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My flat tax is
a
middle-class tax cut. Yours looks like one that was
worked up by the boys
at the yacht basin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MESERVE: But he's got a long way to go to get into the
2000 presidential
debates. In our latest hypothetical three-way match-ups
with the leading
Democratic and Republican candidates, Buchanan draws
around five
percent. His possible Reform Party rival, Donald Trump,
draws 10 percent
in a similar match-up.
Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: The special commission says the 2000 presidential
debates will be a
mix of formats, from a town-hall gathering to a
traditional "stand at the
podium" event.
And they will be held in a variety of cities. The
October 3rd debate will take
place at the John F. Kennedy library in Boston. Then
it's on to Wake Forest
University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the
October 11th face-off.
Washington University in St. Louis will host the October
17th presidential
debate. A vice presidential debate also has been
scheduled on October 5th
at Center College in Danville, Kentucky.
Pat Buchanan suggested today that he hasn't given up
hope that he will take
part in those fall debates. He and other Reform Party
figures wasted no time
in blasting the Debate Commission's new 15 percent rule.
That story from CNN's Pat Neal.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAT NEAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Three-time
presidential candidate Pat Buchanan was preaching
against a new world
order that would favor globalism over national
sovereignty. But in
Buchanan's world order, the Reform Party contender would
be included in
the presidential debates, 15 percent in the polls or
not.
PAT BUCHANAN (REF), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think
it's fair to say you have to be on enough ballots so
that you can win the
presidency of the United States, but these other
criteria are artificial.
NEAL: Buchanan said the decision amounts to a conspiracy
between
Republicans and Democrats, since they're the only ones
on the Debate
Commission.
BUCHANAN: It's like Coke and Pepsi saying no other soft
drink can enter
the market unless they meet a certain criteria. That's
preposterous.
NEAL: Buchanan's likely rival for the Reform Party
nomination, Donald
Trump, agreed:
"I am not surprised that the two-party political
establishment wants to keep
the American people from having a third choice. I am
confident that were I
to become a candidate, I would register strong poll
ratings."
Russ Verney, a Ross Perot loyalist and former head of
the Reform Party,
called the decision an absolute fraud, and said it's the
same situation as
1996, when Perot was left out of the debates.
Like Perot before him, Buchanan says he'll battle to be
included.
BUCHANAN: We're going to fight this before the FEC, and
we will fight it
before the federal courts.
NEAL: One reason the long-time Republican made the leap
to the Reform
Party was the potential of participating in the debates,
where he believes he
could sway voters with his fiery pro-America talk.
Thursday's speech was classic Buchanan, declaring the
United States should
only go to war when attacked, or its vital interests are
imperiled.
BUCHANAN: If ever sovereignty becomes obsolete, we may
expect
America's involvement in endless wars, until one day we
pay the horrific
price in some act of cataclysmic terrorism on our own
soil. For
interventionism is the spawning pool of international
terror.
NEAL (on camera): Buchanan says he'll start his fight to
be included
immediately. Meanwhile, his rival, Donald Trump, goes to
Minnesota for a
long-planned summit with Governor Jesse Ventura, the
highest-ranking
Reform Party official. There, talk of the debates is
sure to be on the agenda.
Pat Neal, CNN, Boston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: And when we return, we'll talk to Pat Buchanan
about that Debate
Commission's decision, and how he and the Reform Party
may suffer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEAL: Pat Neal, CNN, Boston.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: And when we return, we'll talk to Pat Buchanan
about that Debate
Commission's decision and how he and the Reform Party
may suffer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: More reaction now to the Presidential Debate
Commission's
decision to require third-party candidates to get at
least 15 percent in the
polls to participate in debates this fall. We're joined
from Boston by Reform
Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.
Are you sweating the possibility that you won't get 15
percent?
BUCHANAN: No, Bernie, I am not. I believe we can get
that. But what I
do think is an outrage and an insult to the Democratic
process is to have the
two major parties engage basically in a conspiracy to
corner the market on
the presidency of the United States. I represent now and
am a candidate of
the Reform Party. I expect to be its nominee. The Reform
Party will get
federal matching funds for its convention. We get
federal matching funds in
the fall. We're one of three recognized national
parties, and to have the other
two set criteria to keep us out of a debate that is
going to determine the
outcome of the election 2000 is just illegitimate, it is
outrageous, it is an
absurd conflict of interest.
SHAW: How do you mean this is a conspiracy? How can you
prove that?
BUCHANAN: You can't demonstrate that, but let me ask
you, Bernie, if
Coca-Cola and Pepsi set up criterion by which Sprite
could get into the
market, it had to pass a certain threshold or it would
not be allowed to
compete, that would be a criminal conspiracy and
restraint of trade. We
have the two national parties, Mr. Fahrenkoph, former
member of the
Republican Party, million dollar a year lobbyist for the
gambling industry,
deciding whether the one major outside party should even
be able to
compete for the presidency. It seems to me, on its face,
we've got a conflict
of interest.
SHAW: Well, you're being very cost caustic, which is
your wont, but you're
denigrating Frank -- is it illegal for him to make a
million dollars a year?
BUCHANAN: It is not illegal for him to belong to the
Republican Party or
Mr. Kirk to the Democratic Party. But let me ask you,
Bernie, why should
the Democratic and Republican Party, two out of the
three parties that are
federally recognized, decide the criterion by which the
third party may
compete?
SHAW: Pat, let me ask you this question -- instead of
complaining about the
decision, why don't you go out and get 15 percent and
you'll be in the
debates?
BUCHANAN: Exactly. That's what we intend to do, and I
believe we'll do
it. We're going to be the nominee. But, Bernie, what
they've set up is a
situation where both parties, if they don't want you in
the debate, can launch
with their five times as much money as they get, attack
ads on me to drive
me down in their own polls or the other polls, below 15,
at that particular
moment, and then say he's out of the debate, and we
don't fairly compete.
Bernie, they should not be deciding this issue. You have
two parties deciding
on the fate of the third.
SHAW: OK. We're fast running out of time. I've got three
or four questions
I have to ask you.
BUCHANAN: Sure.
SHAW: Does the presence of Donald Trump complicate your
goals?
BUCHANAN: No, because this is going to be in the general
election, and
it'll be Buchanan the nominee.
SHAW: How are you going to fight this?
BUCHANAN: We're going to file suit with the Federal
Election
Commission. I believe they've got 120 days to decide.
SHAW: When?
BUCHANAN: If they decide against us -- as soon as we can
-- we will go
into federal court, and we will tell the federal court
that you have got two
parties trying to kill a third's chance for the
presidency of the United States,
and this is a conspiracy, and it ought not be decided by
Republicans and
Democrats, but all Americans ought to decide whether I
am in that debate,
not the parties I'm running against.
SHAW: Of course you know the FEC has never been
overruled by a
federal court.
BUCHANAN: The FEC is made up of three Republicans and
three
Democrats. That is another absurdity when we have a
third party.
Bernie, the Reform Party has made it. We are recognized.
We get federal
matching funds. We get funds for our convention. We get
funds for the
election. We are a third party, and the other two are
trying to kill what is
new, and hopeful and different.
SHAW: Do you think -- just possibly, do you think that
this decision, these
criteria, issued by the Presidential Debate Commission
might, in fact,
boomerang, ricochet and actually energize Reform Party
members.
BUCHANAN: They're not only going to energize Reform
Party member's,
the American people, even those who disagree with me,
are a fair-minded
people. I mean, look, can you imagine if George Bush and
the folks said,
look, all the candidates who got less than 15 percent in
the polls -- that's
Mr. Bauer, Mr. Keyes, Mr. Forbes -- you are not in the
debates, and these
are the only two in the debates. When George Bush tried
that in 1980,
Ronald Reagan said, you know, I've paid for this
microphone, and I want
these fellows in that debate. When Bush said no, he was
finished as a
candidate.
This is going to backfire on these fellows, pulling a
stunt like this. And we are
a legitimate party.
SHAW: Pat Buchanan, Reform Party candidate, talking to
us from Boston,
thanks very much.
BUCHANAN: Thank you.
SHAW: Quite welcome.
There is much more ahead here on INSIDE POLITICS. Coming
up:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Quiz
question: How many third-party candidates in this
century have gotten at
least 15 percent of the vote?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Bill Schneider has the answer, and he explains why
it does not-bode
well for the Ross Perots of the future.
Plus:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT
(voice-over): A top priority for the House Republican
majority is remaining
the majority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Bob Franken on the key issues on the Republican
agenda for the
coming year. And later:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: We
are so pleased that we are finally here and moved in,
and looking forward
to, you know, many happy days here in the days and
months ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: Hillary Rodham Clinton, on her first night of
being a New York
resident.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: We will have more of the day's political news
coming up. But now,
if you will, a look at some other top stories. President
Clinton has rejoined
those high-level peace talks between Israel and Syria.
Administration
officials are concerned about the pace of negotiations
in Shepherdstown,
West Virginia. Four committees have been set up to
discuss key issues. By
late afternoon, none had met. A State Department
spokesman says Mr.
Clinton hopes to get all parties, quote, "rolling up
their sleeves" to do
substantive work.
A NATO spokesman confirms a report in the German press.
Altered
videotape of a NATO airstrike on a civilian train in
Kosovo bolstered
NATO accounts of that attack. Turns out the tape,
released by NATO last
April, was played three times faster than normal. Now
that served to
support NATO's claim the attack played out too swiftly
to abort. Now
notice how fast the train appears to be traveling as the
bomb zeros in. Now
notice the effect produced when the tape is slowed by a
factor of three.
NATO says it had no knowledge the tape had been altered
and stands by its
account. At least 14 people aboard the train were
killed.
A computer malfunction brought air traffic to a near
standstill today in the
northeastern United States. The problem grounded dozens
of flights. It
happened when a central air traffic control facility
near Washington
experienced a data-transfer mishap. The trouble has
since been fixed, and
normal airport operations have resumed. Federal Aviation
Officials say it
does not appear the glitch was Y2K-related. To learn
more about today's
air traffic mishap and get updates on conditions at
airports around the
country, please log onto our Web site at cnn.com.
It's been a day of more protests in Miami,
Cuban-Americans voicing their
disapproval of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's decision to have
Elian Gonzalez returned to his father in Cuba. Earlier
today, at least three
dozen people were arrested. The 6-year-old is expected
to be reunited with
his father soon. To facilitate the process, his father
is asking the National
Council of Churches' help. Elian was plucked from the
waters off the coast
of Florida on Thanksgiving. His mother drowned on the
trip from Cuba.
Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker has been ordered to
undergo
psychological testing. The order follows Rocker's
disparaging remarks about
homosexuals and minorities in comments to "Sports
Illustrated." The remarks
left the Braves organization wondering what to do about
the outspoken
pitcher.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STAN KASTEN, ATLANTA BRAVES: What we had was a player who
was remorseful, acknowledged not just a horrible mistake
on his part but
also serious wrongdoing and was eager to take whatever
steps he could to
fix this, to get whatever help would be required to
ameliorate this problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHAW: The Atlanta Braves baseball team are owned by Time
Warner,
which also owns CNN. When INSIDE POLITICS returns, Bill
Schneider
takes a look back at third-party candidates and their
support to find how
many would qualify under the new debate rules.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: Now, again, the issue of who should be included in
presidential
debates. New rules announced today by the commission on
presidential
debates allow only candidates who have at least 15
percent support in
national polls to participate. Now that could eliminate
third-party candidates
from these debates this year.
Joining us now with some historical perspective, our own
Bill Schneider.
SCHNEIDER: Quiz question.
SHAW: What?
SCHNEIDER: How many presidential candidates in this
century have gotten
at least 15 percent of the vote? If you say three, well,
we can't give you $1
million, but you're right.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Teddy Roosevelt got 27 percent as a
Progressive Party
candidate in 1912, came in second, carried six states,
too. He was a former
president after all. Another progressive, Robert
LaFollette, got 17 percent in
1924, carried only his own state of Wisconsin. And
Perot, 19 percent in
1992 -- no states.
Hey, what about George Wallace in 1968? Sorry, he only
got 13.5 percent
of the vote, but he carried five Southern states. The
race between Hubert
Humphrey and Richard Nixon was so close, Wallace almost
denied either of
them an electoral vote majority, which would have thrown
the election into
the House of Representatives. Wallace didn't get 15
percent, but he almost
had a decisive impact on the outcome.
Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond carried four Southern states in
1948, but he got
less than three percent of the vote nationwide.
The 15 percent rule clearly excludes regional candidates
like Thurmond and
Wallace, whose support is concentrated in one part of
the country. This
time, the debate commission isn't asking, can the
candidate carry any states,
it's asking, is the candidate viable nationally?
Look at John Anderson in 1980. In September, Anderson
was getting about
14 percent in the polls. The League of Women Voters
invited him to debate
on September 21st. President Carter refused to show up.
Most of
Anderson's vote came at Carter's expense, so Carter
didn't want to give
Anderson legitimacy. Anderson and Ronald Reagan ended up
debating
alone. In October, Anderson's support dropped below 10
percent in the
polls. The league decided not to invite him to the
second debate. On
October 28th, it was just Carter and Reagan. Anderson
ended up with less
than seven percent of the vote and no states.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: This is a case of what the recently deceased
writer Joseph
Heller called "Catch 22." You need to show you're a
nationally viable
candidate to get into the debates, but the easiest way
for you to become a
nationally viable candidate is to get into the debates.
The debate commission is saying, we're not going to make
you viable. You
have to figure out some other way to do that on your own
-- Bernie.
SHAW: Thank you.
We're not done with this subject. Joining us now for
more, the co-chairmen
of the commission on presidential debates, Frank
Fahrenkopf here
Washington, and Paul Kirk, who's in Boston.
Gentlemen, a very simple question: Are these new rules
meant to deny some
candidates a free ride?
Paul Kirk?
PAUL KIRK, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL
DEBATES: Bernie, thank you.
These rules are meant to give the American voter, the
prospective voters in
the next election, the decision-making power to decide
whether they want --
who are the principal rivals they want for the
presidency of the United
States. And we're now nine, 10 months away from that
decision. The
campaign is a long way from over. Campaigns are a
winnowing out process,
a time for candidates to accumulate strength, to gain
respect, to build
support. That's what it's about.
At the end of the day, when the decision is made, if, on
the average of these
polls, that 15 percent of the American people, the
prospective voters, say,
we'd like to see this candidate as a president of the
United States, we favor
him or her, that candidate comes into the debates. But
let's not
misunderstand it. The whole purpose of this criterion is
so the American
people, the voters, will decide by the support they
bring to whoever
candidate they decide to support.
SHAW: Frank Fahrenkopf, is this meant to deny some
candidates a free
ride?
FRANK FAHRENKOPF, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: Well, I don't know what you mean
by a free
ride. If it means that you
SHAW: Getting in on the debates, a stage full of
candidates.
FAHRENKOPF: Well, yes. I mean, you know, most people
don't realize it
but that in every presidential year there's over 100
candidates who run for
office. Of course you can't have 100 people on the
stage. You also have
legitimately over the last six and eight years the
third-party movement in this
country. We tried to come up with a system that was
fair, where everyone
would know nine months out in advance what the barrier
was going to be.
And I thought Pat Buchanan's arguments were very, very
interesting,
because just a few months ago on "Meet the Press," he
said, if I'm at 15
percent, I ought to be in the debates. He has repeated
that 15 percent figure
on a number of shows, including on this network. Well
now, apparently, he's
unhappy with it. So he can't have it both ways. I think
he's being a little
disingenuous.
The purpose here is to present to the American people in
the fall the leading
candidates, those who have a realistic chance of getting
elected. We think
the American people will tell us that by taking the
average of the five polls.
SHAW: For you to say that Pat Buchanan is unhappy is an
understatement.
He excoriated everything you have done. He said that
this is a stunt, he
warns of a national backlash, he calls it outrageous and
he said very
seriously that what you have done is committed a
conspiracy.
FAHRENKOPF: He's saying that there is a conspiracy among
the two
parties, while Paul and I are ex-chairman of the two
national parties. The
national parties have nothing whatsoever to do with the
debate commission.
We get no money from the national parties, we get no
money from the
federal government. We raised the money privately. There
is no conspiracy,
Pat knows that, but Pat's, you know, trying to develop
his own following,
and he's got to say what he has to say to get the
nomination, I guess.
SHAW: Paul Kirk, he says he's going to take you to
court.
KIRK: Well, that's OK, Bernie, we've been taken to court
at the end of
every cycle. In all these cycles, the courts, the FEC,
others have said what
the commission has done, the criteria they've applied is
objective, it's
pre-established and it stands as it always do. What
we've tried to do this
time, we've changed somewhat and modified, streamlined
the criteria, so
would be absolutely no doubt in whose hands this
decision rests.
SHAW: Let's look a little closer at one of the
criterions within these criteria.
How -- where did you come up with 15 percent, why not 10
percent, why
not 12 percent?
KIRK: That's a question that can be debated anywhere.
This was the
considered judgment of people on the commission. Others
-- some looked
back at history, Bill gave us some, that 15 percent was
a fair and reasonable
threshold. You have to keep in mind what the mission of
the debate
commission is and what -- where we are at the time those
decisions are
made. We go through a long -- some of the campaigns are
four years long.
We get to the end and what the American people, I think,
want and what the
commission is charged to do is put forth a debate in
which the principal rivals
for the presidency debate and compete. Not as was
mentioned earlier we'll
give some other candidate who hasn't built up the
strength an opportunity to
go at the end of the campaign and see if he can make it
or not. That's not
what campaigns are about. The debates are just a
specific format within a
long campaign period.
SHAW: But, Paul and Frank, you mean to say that if Pat
Buchanan gets
14.5 percent, 14.9 percent, you would deny him a place
on the stage?
FAHRENKOPF: Well, let me tell you how to it works -- go
ahead, Paul. I'll
follow.
KIRK: No, I was just going to say there have to be at
the early part of a
process like this, there have to be clear lines and
rules of the road and rules
of the game. And now all the American people know what
the rules are,
every campaign knows what the rules are, I don't -- yes,
you can argue,
well, 14.8, but it's not going to...
SHAW: Will you?
KIRK: It's not going to vary. People know what the
benchmark is, we'll
abide by it, and the choice will be made. Otherwise, it
would be totally
unfair.
SHAW: OK. I just want to be clear.
KIRK: You can't set the rules and then change them at
the end of the game.
FAHRENKOPF: It's 15, Bernie. It's 15.
SHAW: It's 15 percent.
FAHRENKOPF: Frank Newport of Gallup, who is an adviser
to the
commission, who also does work with this network,
indicates to us that the
five polls that we're going to average in fact already
round either up or
down. It shouldn't be a second rounding.
SHAW: OK. Wait a minute. We're fast running out of time.
But what about
this-reality when polls are taken, they have a plus or
minus 3 percent margin
of error, what do you do about that? Doesn't 14.5 or
14.9 percent then
become very relevant?
FAHRENKOPF: Well, what the indication is to us from the
experts out
there is that -- sure you can -- with every poll you
have a certain margin of
error, but we're talking about give polls here, that's
going to be thousands
and thousands of people that will eliminate and lower
down that margin of
error.
And I also want to say, because I have to, because Pat
has charged us with
a conspiracy, we've gone back to a system that is very
much like the League
of Women Voters used in place, setting out there a
number that had to be
met. Clearly, the League of Women Voters weren't
conspiring to keep
third-party candidates. We allowed Ross Perot in the
'92. He was right to
be in then. We think he was not right to be in, in 1996.
So, you know, we
reject those charges made by Pat Buchanan. SHAW: Frank
Fahrenkopf,
Paul Kirk, co-chairmen of the Commission on Presidential
Debates,
obviously we think this is a very important subject,
that's why we devoted
more than 12 minutes to it today on INSIDE POLITICS, and
we'll be
following it very, very closely.
Gentlemen, thank you.
KIRK: Thanks, Bernie.
SHAW: Quite welcome.
Up next: Is Al Gore's campaign manager ruffling
Republican feathers.
Plus, the Republican agenda: Bob Franken looks at the
GOP's top priority.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: Democratic candidates fanned out from their debate
in New
Hampshire last night. Vice President Al Gore on the road
now, as is Senator
Bill Bradley arriving here at a rally at the Des Moines,
lowa airport.
Al Gore's campaign manager, Donna Brazile, has a
reputation of being
outspoken and assertive, qualities the vice president
wanted as he revamped
his campaign team. But on the subject of race and
politics, she has infuriated
one very prominent Republican.
Wolf Blitzer joins us now with details -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Bernie, he is an
African-American
Republican, an icon in many respects: General Colin
Powell. Now, Donna
Brazile, of course, is African-American as well. And
yesterday, she gave an
interview to Bloomberg.com, an outspoken interview.
Among other things she said this: "The Republicans bring
out Colin Powell
and J.C. Watts, the congressman from Oklahoma, because
they have no
program, no policy. They play that game because they
have no other game.
They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take
pictures with black
children than feed them." Strong words from Donna
Brazile.
To which General Colin Powell today has written a very
tough letter to Vice
President Gore, reminding him that the two men together
with President
Clinton worked on many projects to help America's
children, black and
white. Among other things General Powell in his letter
to Vice President
Gore said this, "I do so to help feed, educate and
spiritually nourish all of
America's children, black and white, and not just for a
photo op. And I do
so as a Republican."
The vice president, in the letter that he received from
General Powell, was
also reminded of this by General Powell:
"We can debate and disagree over specific programs and
approaches, but
let's not start the new century by playing the
polarizing race card, which
immediately contaminates and destroys the opportunity
for open debate on
issues of importance to all of our children."
To which the vice president's press secretary Chris
Lehane, the campaign
press secretary responded that General Powell is a great
American, he has
contributed a lot to this country. But Chris Lehane goes
on to condemn the
Republicans for being a party that is not conducive to
helping
African-Americans in this country, and he goes on to
say, "Donna Brazile is
doing a great job as campaign manager," suggesting she's
not about to be
fired -- Bernie.
SHAW: Wolf Blitzer, very, very interesting, thank you.
Congress won't reconvene until January 24, but the
Republican leadership
met today to announce its agenda for the year.
Our Bob Franken takes a look at the familiar issues that
top the list.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: The Republican leadership met today to announce
its agenda for the
year.
Our Bob Franken takes a look at the familiar issues that
top the list.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. J.C. WATTS (R-OK), CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN: A top
priority for the House Republican majority is remaining
the majority.
REP. DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL), HOUSE SPEAKER: The American
people have a choice, of voting for a Congress and a
party with new ideas
and new energy, or going back to a Congress of old
ideas.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This year's
Republican ideas are last year's ideas, starting with
DICK ARMEY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: Tax relief for the
American family.
FRANKEN: In fact, the first order of business for House
Republicans will
be another effort to repeal the marriage penalty. But
coming out of two days
of meetings may produce a new wrinkle in their tax
strategy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to be honest with
yourselves.
FRANKEN: GOP sources tell CNN the large majority in
their party wants
to avoid an all-encompassing tax cut, like the $792
billion proposal in last
year's budget.
Instead, Republicans want to discourage another
presidential veto by
passing popular tax cuts one by one.
They also will emphasize trade, as well as high-tech
legislation.
And fending off the Democrats.
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: We're
still aware of how much of our agenda from last year is
undone.
FRANKEN: That means HMO reform again, gun control,
prescription
drugs for Medicare recipients, minimum wage legislation,
as well as a new
Democratic proposal to spend federal money repairing
decrepit schools.
Democrats feel they have the upper hand.
GEOFFREY GARIN, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: Right now I would
much rather be the Democrats than the Republicans
looking ahead to the
2000 elections.
REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY WHIP: The best part of
this is
to look over the last five years.
FRANKEN: It's five years since Newt Gingrich and
Republicans wrenched
control of Congress away from the Democrats.
(on camera): Now it's the Democrats storming the
Capitol, and the
Republicans trying to hold on to their precarious
position at the top of the
hill.
Bob Franken, CNN, Capitol Hill.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: And still ahead, the first couple returns from
their Empire State
home. A look at how they rate life outside 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SHAW: The first couple returned to Washington today
after spending the
first night in their New York home. While much unpacking
remains, Mrs.
Clinton can now tell the voters of the Empire State she
is indeed a New
York resident.
Kelly Wallace reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY: Welcome to our house.
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The
president and the first lady beamed as they strolled
down their driveway to
tell reporters about their first night in their new
home.
H. CLINTON: We loved it. Well, it was a little
overwhelming because there
is so much to be done, and we stayed up very late.
WALLACE: Until after 1:00 a.m., in fact, unpacking boxes
and moving
furniture inside their $1.7 million colonial in the
upscale New York City
suburb of Chappaqua, their first home after years in the
Arkansas governor's
mansion and the White House.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This
is the first home we have had since January of 1983, 17
years ago, when we
moved back into the governor's mansion in Little Rock.
WALLACE: A family friend brought over a home-cooked
dinner, and
neighbors dropped off a bottle of champagne.
W. CLINTON: We also want to thank our neighbors who have
been
long-suffering with all the attention.
WALLACE: But not everyone is so understanding of all the
security and all
the media tracking the new occupants of Old House Lane.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are causing a big furor.
H. CLINTON: I'm really going to work on that, I'm going
to talk about it a
lot. In fact
WALLACE: Of course, this is also a political move, and
so the likely Senate
candidate took the opportunity to shake a few hands in
downtown
Chappaqua.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mrs. Clinton, how does it feel to
officially be a
New Yorker?
H. CLINTON: It feels great.
WALLACE: The first lady needed to establish residency in
New York in
order to run, and is now a registered voter in the
Empire State. Her husband
plans to follow her lead.
W. CLINTON: I've got a particular interest in the
election up here next
year, so I want to make sure my vote counts.
WALLACE: The Clintons stayed in Chappaqua less than 24
hours before
heading back to Washington.
(on camera): The first lady refused to answer questions
about the financing
of her campaign. Instead, she wanted to focus on the new
home, and clearly
try and get the message out to New Yorkers that she is
now one of them.
Kelly Wallace, CNN, Chappaqua, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SHAW: Well, that's all for this edition of INSIDE
POLITICS.
We'll see you again tomorrow, when our Bruce Morton will
be live from
Columbia, South Carolina, previewing that Republican
presidential debate in
that state.
And as always you can go online all the time at CNN's
allpolitics.com.
And, please, this programming note: The Democratic
presidential race will
be the focus tonight on "CROSSFIRE." The guests will be
Bradley New
Hampshire campaign director Mark Longabaugh, and former
Gore chief of
staff Ron Klain. That's at 7:30 p.m. Eastern.
I'm Bernard Shaw. and "WORLDVIEW" is next.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 18:16:16.00
SUBJECT: Weekend Television Update -- note revisions to This Week and Meet
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher (CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Audrey T. Haynes ( CN=Audrey T. Haynes/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick M. Dorton (CN=Patrick M. Dorton/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura M. Quinn (CN=Laura M. Quinn/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matt Gobush (CN=Matt Gobush/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland (CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher C. Jennings ( CN=Christopher C. Jennings/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Serena C. Torrey ( CN=Serena C. Torrey/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce R. Lindsey ( CN=Bruce R. Lindsey/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O-EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Cathy R. Mays ( CN=Cathy R. Mays/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz (CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov (CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann F. Lewis (CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy (CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Loretta M. Ucelli ( CN=Loretta M. Ucelli/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maria Echaveste (CN=Maria Echaveste/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Camille Johnston (CN=Camille Johnston/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark J. Bernstein (CN=Mark J. Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephanie A. Cutter ( CN=Stephanie A. Cutter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa B. Ratcliff ( CN=Melissa B. Ratcliff/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Linda Ricci ( CN=Linda Ricci/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre (CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman ( CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sidney Blumenthal (CN=Sidney Blumenthal/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button (CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Marjorie Tarmey ( CN=Marjorie Tarmey/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kris M Balderston (CN=Kris M Balderston/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nancy V. Hernreich ( CN=Nancy V. Hernreich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joel Johnson (CN=Joel Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert (CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John Podesta (CN=John Podesta/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
MEMORANDUM
TO: JOE LOCKHART, ANN LEWIS, DOUG SOSNIK, JOEL JOHNSON, AND LORETTA
UCELLI
FROM:
JULIA PAYNE
RE:
WEEKEND TELEVISION
*Please check weekend Washington Post for listing changes
FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 2000
WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW (Gloria Borger guest host)
Topics:
Campaign 2000; Cuban boy; OSHA
Guests: David Broder, Susan Feeney; Martha Raddatz; Mara Liasson
SATURDAY, JANUARY 8, 2000
EVANS, NOVAK, SHIELDS & HUNT (CNN)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Governor Vilsack (IA)
CAPTIAL GANG (CNN)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Pollster Geoff Garin
SUNDAY, JANUARY 2, 2000
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (FOX)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Bill Bradley
Topic:
Campaign 2000 ) lowa
Guest:
David Yepsen
Roundtable: Juan Williams, Brit Hume, Mara Liasson
FACE THE NATION(CBS)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
John McCain
Topic:
Reform Party
Guest:
Governor Jesse Ventura
Roundtable:
Gloria Borger, USNWR
THIS WEEK (ABC)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Bob and Elizabeth Dole
Topic:
Gays in the Military
Guest:
Gen. Merrill McPeak (ret), CoS USAF; Col. Margarethe
Cammermeyer (ret), Army National Guard
Topic:
NH voters , focus group
Guest:
George Stephanopolous, Jeffrey Pollock, Democratic
pollster
Roundtable: George Stephanopolous, George Will
MEET THE PRESS (NBC)
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Senator Judd Gregg; Rep. Lindsey Graham; Bob Shrum;
Rep. Jerry Nadler
Topic:
Campaign 2000 Roundtable
Guest:
William Safire, Al Hunt, Joe Klein, and Bill Kristol
LATE EDITION (CNN)
Topic:
Africa and the United Nations
Guest:
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
Topic:
Campaign 2000
Guest:
Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Paul Wellstone
Topic:
NY Senate Race
Guest:
Ed Koch, Susan Molinari
Roundtable: Susan Page, Steve Roberts, and Tucker Carlson
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 10:04:59.00
SUBJECT: CNN Crossfire, January 6, 2000
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Reich ( CN=Brian A. Reich/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Emily Karcher ( CN=Emily Karcher/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gilbert S. Gonzalez ( CN=Gilbert S. Gonzalez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maura M. Pally ( CN=Maura M. Pally/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer H. Smith ( CN=Jennifer H. Smith/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison ( CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP[ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa (CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier ( CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O-EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O-EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens ( CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li (CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre ( CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney (CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein (CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua Gotbaum (CN=Joshua Gotbaum/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephen N. Boyd ( CN=Stephen N. Boyd/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Matthew T. Schneider ( CN=Matthew T. Schneider/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Scott Hynes ( CN=Scott Hynes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez (CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan (CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield ( CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy ( CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis(CN=LauraJ.Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer ( CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih (CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine (CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz (CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne (CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
CNN Crossfire
Aired January 6, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. ET
Which Democrat Will Win in New Hampshire?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL BRADLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, Al,
your underdog pitch brings tears to my eyes.
AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I
hope
that my upset victory brings tears to your eyes on
February 1st.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight, the New Hampshire
primary is
just weeks away. After votes are counted, which
Democratic candidate will
be laughing, and which will be crying?
ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left,
Bill
Press. On the right, Robert Novak.
In the CROSSFIRE, Ron Klain, former chief of staff to
Vice President Al
Gore and an adviser to the Gore campaign. And in Des
Moines, Eric
Hauser, press secretary for Bill Bradley.
NOVAK: Good evening, welcome to CROSSFIRE.
Al Gore and Bill Bradley squared off in their fourth
Democratic presidential
debate. And it's not just the vice president calling the
former senator a
quitter. The former basketball star also took off the
gloves.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: When I hear you talk, Al, it reminds me of a
Washington
bunker. I think you're in the Washington bunker. And I
can understand why
you're in the bunker. I mean, there's Gingrich, there
was the fund-raising
scandal, there was the impeachment problem. And I think
that the major
objective in the last several years in the White House
has been political
survival. I understand that.
GORE: I'm proud that I stayed and fought against the
Gingrich Congress.
I'm proud that I was where I think the American people
needed a lot of
folks to be, fighting against that, preventing them from
shutting down the
government.
(END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: But what made front pages of the
nation's
newspapers was the vice president saying, yes, he would
impose a gay rights
litmus test in naming members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. Senator Bradley
didn't go quite that far but did say the generals and
admirals he picked would
follow his orders to allow gays in the military.
If you didn't catch debate number four last night, never
fear. Debate number
five will be in Des Moines Saturday afternoon, broadcast
live on CNN.
Who's winning these debates? And are the debates really
preparing the
Democrats to run against Republicans next November?
Bill?
BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Eric Hauser, I started out in
politics with Gene
McCarthy in 1968, so I like somebody who's independent,
I like somebody
who's an outsider. I thought that's what Bill Bradley
was, and then I hear him
last night giving this answer when challenged to give up
30-second
commercials.
Let's remind everybody what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: Let me tell you, if you are not known by a
million people in the
country, as Al is -- I'm not known by as many people. My
only opportunity
to get known is through a 30-second television
commercial, which, quite
frankly, if you know what you believe is really not a
problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PRESS: Now, Eric, that is classic insider establishment
BS, isn't it?
ERIC HAUSER, BRADLEY PRESS SECRETARY: No, not at all. The
couple points are, one, it is true. You can say -- you
can have an important
impression in 30 seconds if you're clear and candid and
direct with people.
Thirty-second ads, 60-second ads are not the only way to
communicate.
You do it in living rooms, you do it in debates, you do
it in speeches. But the
other part of it is 30-second ads aren't the problem,
30-second attack ads
are the problem. People aren't saying they want to hear
less of politicians
through the air, they're saying they don't want to hear
attack politics through
the air. So we'll keep a mix of communication, and we'll
keep it positive.
PRESS: Eric, you're doing what your boss does. You're
avoiding the
question. Look, Bill Bradley is not an unknown, and his
answer is the same
answer you hear from Mitch McConnell and Republicans on
campaign
reform. They say we can't do it because we need to keep
raising money,
basically, to fight the other side.
HAUSER: Bill, Bill, he is a lot less known than the vice
president. And,
more importantly -- and it was interesting. The vice
president sort of agreed
to this last night when said, now this time, Bill. It's
not a ploy, meaning last
time it was, meaning it still is a ploy. And it's a
gimmick. There's a lot of
stunts. There's a lot of gimmicks. It's a foolish idea,
and I don't think we'll do
it
PRESS: And
HAUSER:
under any circumstances.
PRESS: And
HAUSER: It's a form of communication with people. And If
you say what
you believe
PRESS: And
HAUSER: about health care and guns and campaign
finance reform and
look in the camera, tell people
PRESS: And
HAUSER: what you believe and why, that's fine.
PRESS: And, Eric, standing up -- Bill Bradley standing
up with John
McCain in New Hampshire and shaking hands was not a
campaign ploy?
HAUSER: Absolutely not. These have been guys that have
committed to
campaign finance reform since the very beginning of this
campaign, that have
made it centerpieces, that have proven something very
important, which is
you need cooperation and a national purpose to get
campaign finance reform
done. We haven't had that in the last seven or eight
years, and you need that
if you're going to get it accomplished.
NOVAK: Ron Klain, I was reading today the "Hot Line"
publication, all the
reaction to last night's debates from people who aren't
committed --
journalists, analysts, neutrals. They all say your
candidate lost. You doing
something wrong?
RON KLAIN, GORE ADVISER: Bob, you're reading something
different
than what I'm reading. I heard a great reaction from
people all over the
country to the vice president last night. And it's no
surprise. Once again, I
thought he was right on the issues. I think he was right
on the issue that Bill
just raised, which was the question whether or not
Senator Bradley would
be willing to give up 30-second spots and focus the
campaign on the issues
through a series of debates.
And what the vice president said last night was if
Senator Bradley isn't
known throughout the country, he'd limited it to New
Hampshire alone,
where Bill Bradley is leading us, and where there's no
reason why he can't
agree to the vice president's proposal.
NOVAK: Ron, I'll send you that sheet from the
KLAIN: Thanks, Bob, thanks. I appreciate that.
NOVAK: You'll see. But let me -- I try to be helpful.
And I want to tell you
what's wrong with the vice president. And let's just
KLAIN: Thanks, Bob. I appreciate that.
NOVAK: Let's just look at this little piece from the
debate last night.
KLAIN: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: First of all, Al, let me explain to you, Al,
how the private
sectors works, OK? If you have -- if you have a health
care plan
GORE: Try not to be aloof.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: You may not have heard that. What Vice President
Gore said
was "try not to be aloof." And, you know, they're having
a debate about
health care, and he has read somewhere in some of the
polling data that you
have piled onto him that Bradley is too aloof. He reads
it in the paper, and
so in the middle of the health care thing, he says, try
not to be aloof. That's
the whole problem.
KLAIN: Well, no, no. Look, first of all -- by the way, I
think the first
question in that debate was a question from a journalist
asking Senator
Bradley about his aloofness. And, frankly, I thought
Senator Bradley's
answer was just plain, old condescending. He doesn't
want to defend his
health care plan because he
HAUSER: Ron, Ron, wait a minute.
KLAIN: Eric, let me finish. I didn't interrupt you. Let
me finish.
HAUSER: All right.
KLAIN: He doesn't want to defend his let care plan
because he can't. It's a
bad plan. It gets rid of Medicaid, it gets --
unstabilizes the health care
system, it would explode the deficit. It's a wrong plan.
That's why Senator
Bradley can't defend the program.
NOVAK: You didn't answer my question, but I didn't
expect you to. But I
want to raise one other thing. You have been -- the vice
president has been
really attacking Senator Bradley as being the tool of
the pharmaceutical
companies. And he answered that last night.
And let's take a look at what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: Less than one percent of the money that I ever
raised when I
was running in all of my Senate campaigns came from
anybody connected to
a pharmaceutical company, less than this 3/10 of a
percent in my presidential
campaign. So from my standpoint, that's not a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: Now don't you think the vice president owes
Senator Bradley an
apology, raising this red herring of pharmaceutical
contribution, when less
than one percent of his contributions come from those
companies?
KLAIN: Look it's thousands and thousands of dollars,
whatever the
percentage is. And Senator Bradley has been, as I think
has been
documented in most of the major newspapers -- "The New
York Times did
a story about this a couple of weeks ago -- a very loyal
and overly loyal
friend of the pharmaceutical industry. And just this
week, when he
announced his big plan to close corporate tax loopholes,
none of them were
addressed to the pharmaceutical industry once again.
On the tax issue, the difference between these two
candidates couldn't be
clearer. Al Gore supports middle class tax relief, and
Bill Bradley hasn't
pushed that issue in this campaign.
PRESS: Eric, I've got a question for you here, but if
you want to
HAUSER: Let me
PRESS: give a quick response, go ahead.
HAUSER: Let me -- can I ask a question for Ron?
PRESS: Yes, go ahead.
HAUSER: Ron, how much, I mean, $150 billion, $350
billion, the vice
president's tax cut range is extraordinary. And that's
why we don't know
exactly how much he's trying to spend. The fact is the
vice president, by his
own numbers, has overspent the surplus. So any talk of a
tax cut
KLAIN: Eric, that's just not true. The vice president
has been right there on
taxes
HAUSER: Which one? No, he hasn't, Ron.
KLAIN: He's very clear on taxes, very clear.
HAUSER: How much? How much?
KLAIN: He's talked about getting rid of the marriage
penalty. I wish
Senator Bradley would support that.
HAUSER: But how much, Ron?
KLAIN: Health care tax cuts, savings tax cuts, a total
of almost $300 billion.
And his plan, unlike Senator Bradley's, fits within the
balanced budget
HAUSER: No, it doesn't. KLAIN: and doesn't
destabilize the economic
future of our country.
HAUSER: No, it doesn't.
KLAIN: I'm sorry, Eric. Those are the facts.
PRESS: All right, let me jump in here with a tax
question that didn't come up
in the debate last night, Eric, which is the senator's
statement yesterday that
he wanted to eliminate or close some tax loopholes.
Liberals love that, right?
Tax loopholes amounting to $125 billion. My question to
you, Eric, is this is
a senator who authored, when he was in the Senate, a tax
break for
pharmaceutical companies doing business in Puerto Rico,
also a senator who
flip- flopped on one of the worst tax loopholes, which
is the ethanol subsidy
in Iowa. I mean, isn't it kind of hypocritical of him to
talk about tax breaks
when he's -- I mean, loopholes, when he's the author of
these two?
HAUSER: No, I -- you know, he is the author of the 1986
tax reform act,
which was probably the greatest reform in of the tax
code in American
history, taking out billions of dollars in loopholes and
lowering rates for
millions of Americans.
PRESS: But he can't have it both ways, Eric.
HAUSER: No, but the point is, the interesting thing the
other day after we
made the proposal to save $125 billion, is the Gore
campaign said that Bill
Bradley was new to the issue of tax reform. That's like
saying he's recently
tall. I mean, you guys have got to get the facts right.
He offered the biggest
bill on tax reform in the country, and we're going to
continue that tradition in
the White House.
NOVAK:11 have to.get away from the debate for a moment,
Mr. Klain. The
Gore campaign manager, Donna Brazile, made this
statement, quote:
"The Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts
because they have
no program, no policy. They play that game because they
have no other
game. They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take
pictures with black
children than feed them."
And a black Republican, Governor Colin Powell was
PRESS: General -- you said "governor."
NOVAK: I'm sorry -- General Colin Powell was absolutely
outraged by
that. He called it playing the race card. Are you
identifying yourself with the
outrageous statements by Donna Brazile?
KLAIN: Donna Brazile was 100 percent right. Look,
General Powell is a
great American. He's a great leader. He's a national
hero. J.C. Watts is a
great man, too. But the fact is that their presence in
the Republican Party, as
great leaders as they are, doesn't make up for the fact
the Republican Party
has no real agenda to help
NOVAK: So you like to play the race card.
KLAIN: This is not about playing the race card; it's
about playing the truth
card, Bob. And the truth card is this: The Republican
Party doesn't have an
agenda to help minorities.
In fact, just yesterday, as this controversy was
erupting, the Republican
Party once again renewed their opposition to the vice
president's plan to
support school construction in our inner-cities. Where
is their agenda for
African-Americans in this country, Bob?
PRESS: Gentlemen, we're going to have to take a break.
We've got more
issues and more differences coming up. But as we go to
this break, here's
one issue that both candidates found last night that
they could agree on.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I respect,
Bill. I really do. I am not just saying that as a ploy.
I think he's a genuinely
good person.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You agree with him? ?
BILL BRADLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree with
what
he said, yes. I think I'm a genuinely good person.
(LAUGHTER)
GORE: He also thinks he's a genuinely good person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.
In the first debate of 2000, Bill Bradley and Al Gore
agreed last night on
gays in the military, but they clashed over health care,
Medicare and
relations with Russia, among other topics. Tonight, we
continue to probe the
difference on the issues with representatives of both
candidates. In Des
Moines, Eric Hauser, press secretary to Bill Bradley.
Here in Washington,
Ron Klain, former chief of staff to Vice President Gore
and now adviser to
the gore campaign -- Bob.
NOVAK: Eric Hauser, I almost fell off my chair last
night when I heard
Senator Bradley, not only raise the impeachment issue,
when he talked
about Al Gore in the bunker, but say this about his
Democratic
administration's policy to Russia. Let's take a look at
it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRADLEY: I look at our relations with Russia over the
last eight years, and
I think we've had a missed opportunity. They came, they
wanted to know
what to do. I think that we have not pushed hard enough
for a reduction in
strategic nuclear weapons, destruction of nuclear
stockpiles. I believe that
we sent IMF money to Russia knowing that corruption was
rampant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: Eric, any one of the six pack of Republican
candidates debating
tonight at Durham, New Hampshire could use that -- are
you just cutting all
of your ties with the Clinton administration?
HAUSER: No. We've got a disagreement with some of how --
some of the
Russia policy over the last six or seven years, but
there's a thread that
extends far beyond Russia, and it's missed
opportunities, and it's settling for
far less than we could do, whether it's Russia, or gun
control, or child
poverty, or health care, or campaign finance reform and
on and on and on.
The vice president made very clear last night that he
was willing to settle for
a lot less than Americans want, and that's unfortunate.
And it's clear on
health care, in particular, that he is leaving millions
of people behind without
insurance, without finances for insurance.
(CROSSTALK)
HAUSER: Well, let me make one other point on this one.
You've talked
about step by step to universal care. There is no more
money in your budget
for any steps. What you've proposed is as far as you're
going to get in a
Gore administration, and that's what you have settled
for and that's how
(CROSSTALK)
HAUSER: Ron, talk about yourself for a minute.
PRESS: One at a time.
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: Eric, OK, hold on.
KLAIN: Senator Bradley's proposal costs six times and
covers one percent
more persons and leaves nothing, nothing for education,
to save Medicare,
to promote fiscal responsibility and for tax cuts. Bill
Bradley has the small
agenda here. It's an agenda here; it's an agenda just
focused on health care.
Al Gore has leadership for the 2 1st century on health
care, education,
Medicare, Medicaid, the whole range of issues. That's
the biggest difference
here.
NOVAK: That's fascinating, but that's not the point I
was making. You
know, the first election I voted in was 1952, and the
Democratic candidate,
Adlai Stevenson, just trashed the Truman administration
up and down
America. They missed opportunities, they didn't do well
enough, and he
ended up winning nine out of 48 states for one of the
worst Democratic
showings ever.
Isn't there a danger when you really dump on your own
record, Democratic
record of eight years, you're giving a windfall to the
Republicans? HAUSER:
No, it's -- Bob, I think it's a difference of opinion on
a critical issue in global
relations. There have been some things the Clinton
administration has done
right. There have been things that Senator Bradley
believes have not been
done as well as they should have been. That's normal
politicking. What's not
normal politicking is attacking relentlessly on issues
that are distorted, are
unclear, are -- that's the difference in the Gore
campaign, Unfortunately, he
started with that back in October.
NOVAK: I want one more thing about the general --
looking forward to the
general election. Last night, your candidate said that
he would force
members of the joint chiefs of staff to accept his views
on gays in the
military. Vice President Gore said he would have a
litmus test on members
of the joint chiefs of staff.
Don't you know, Eric, that the Republicans are going to
take those
soundbites in the general election and whichever of you
is nominated, just
cram it down your throat?
HAUSER: No I don't think so. I mean, I think it's an
issue of common
human respect, and that gays in the -- we believe gays
should be allowed to
serve openly in the military. And what Senator Bradley
talked about last
night was establishing that principle and that working
in consultation with the
Joint Chiefs and the military on enacting that principle
in the course of his
administration. He made the point that military officers
follow their
commander in chief and they'll follow this principle
that he's laid out and the
vice president has agreed with.
PRESS: Let me pick up on that, Ron, with you, because
you know, I
thought -- I remember as a Democrat attacking the
Republicans all the time,
because they wanted litmus test for appointees to the
Supreme Court. Are
you saying now and is Al Gore saying that we are for
litmus tests when it
comes to the military?
KLAIN: What the vice president said last night was that
litmus tests for an
independent branch of the government, like the
Judiciary, is one question,
but it's, of course, common sense that people he will
appoint to jobs in his
administration will support his policies. That's why
it's the executive branch.
That's why the president is the commander in chief. And
I think it's common
sense that the vice president, who wants to rid our
military of discrimination,
is going to seek people to serve in high posts in that
armed forces that share
his views against discrimination. I think that is common
sense. I think it's why
both Al Gore and Bill Bradley agreed on that last night.
PRESS: Well, I totally agree that the "don't ask don't
tell" policy is
outrageous. It should never have been adopted. It should
be eliminated right
away.
But I think the question is: What is the proper role of
the military? Let me
just read you what one of the former marine commandants
said today,
quote, this is
NOVAK: Commandant. PRESS: commandant -- Carl,
General Carl
Mundy. Quote:
"Military officers certainly execute the orders of the
president, but a litmus
test beforehand would place an officer in an untenable
position, saying: Do
you believe what I believe? I think it would be
unworkable."
Isn't that the issue? It is not that a soldier won't
obey orders, but you can't --
are you going to demand of the soldier that he agree
with you ahead of time?
KLAIN: The vice president as commander-in-chief is going
to demand
military officers be prepared to support and execute his
policies. I think
that's common sense for someone who is trying to bring an
anti-discrimination approach to the U.S. military. I am
sure that's what Harry
Truman did when he integrated the armed forces, and I
think it's sensible for
Al Gore to want to do the same thing now.
I think it is a step forward in our society. It's a step
for eliminating
discrimination in the armed forces. I think it's the
right place for the next
president to be.
PRESS: Let me ask you just one other quick one on
handguns.
KLAIN: Sure.
PRESS: Because I was surprised last night when Bill
Bradley -- I mean, Al
Gore has been good on handgun control.
KLAIN: Right.
PRESS: Bill Bradley said one simple thing: I want to
license and register all
hand guns. And the vice president would not go along
with it. Why not?
What is wrong with that policy?
KLAIN: Because what the vice president has is a policy
that makes a heck
of a lot more sense, which is licensing gun owners, and
making sure that
before you can go buy a handgun you have a photo ID,
basic safety
instructions, and a legal entitlement to buy them.
Registering handguns would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
There is no way to
actually implement it. Senator Bradley has no plan to do
it. It would be an
absolute disaster. It can't be done right now in our
country.
And why not -- and why not do something that will make
our streets actually
safer?
PRESS: Eric
HAUSER: Yes.
KLAIN: This is like a lot of things Bill Bradley has
proposed.
HAUSER: No, no, no, Ron
KLAIN: It sounds good at first blush
HAUSER: Ron, first of all
KLAIN: but it wouldn't work.
HAUSER: Ron, first of all, we support licensing, but
what you're doing is
leaving 66 million guns in America without any check.
The guns that are
already out there, the only way to trace them, the only
way to track them,
the only way to know how they're used in crimes and how
to find the people
who use them, is to register. It's symbolic of so many
things.
You have got to step up and do the big thing, because
it's going to help a lot
of people. And with that many guns out there
unregistered, you're not going
to be able to trace them, and
KLAIN: It is symbolic of many things, Eric.
HAUSER: you're selling people short, you're selling
people short.
KLAIN: It is symbolic of many things. It's a complicated
plan Senator
Bradley has laid out there that wouldn't work, that
hasn't been thought
through, that has no details, and wouldn't actually do
anything to make this
country better off.
NOVAK: All right, we're going to -- we're going to have
to take a break.
I want to ask a quick question: Richard Berke of "The
New York Times" on
"INSIDE POLITICS" on CNN today. I think he's an
objective reporter. He
said both of you are running well to the left. Is that
true? Eric?
HAUSER: I think we're running right to common sense,
which is where most
Americans are. You're not going to tell me that most
Americans don't want
health insurance for everybody, don't want guns off the
streets, don't
NOVAK: Ron, quickly, are you running to the left?
KLAIN: The vice president is running on a common-sense
agenda that will
make America a better place in the 21st century.
NOVAK: You're both wrong, you're both running to the
left, and that old
left-winger Bill Press -- thank you very much, Ron
Klain.
KLAIN: Thank you.
NOVAK: Thank you Eric Hauser in Des Moines.
HAUSER: Thanks, guys.
NOVAK: And that old left-winger Bill Press and I will be
back with closing
comments in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PRESS: OK, if you love politics, CNN is the network to
watch, and here a
couple of programming notes: lowa and New Hampshire, of
course, aren't
the only states where votes matter. The GOP candidates
meet in South
Carolina tomorrow night for still another debate. And in
the CROSSFIRE
tomorrow, to preview it, we'll be joined by Bush adviser
Ralph Reed, and
McCain's top man in the state, Congressman Lindsey
Graham. That's
Friday, tomorrow night, at 7:30.
And Saturday at 2:00, tune in to watch Democratic
candidates Al Gore and
Bill Bradley face off in still another debate, this one
in Des Moines, lowa.
And of course, that is all on CNN.
Bob, first I have to tell you, I agree with you on -- I
thought Donna Brazil's
comments were out of line, and she certainly deserves an
apology to Colin
Powell, at least, and to J.C. Watts.
The other thing I have to tell you -- you know what I
picked up last night
from this debate? I think Bill Bradley is surprisingly
thin-skinned. I mean, he
loves to put out these big ideas, but when you challenge
him he really bristles
-- and question whether he's really tough enough for the
long haul.
NOVAK: Well, I've spent my whole life looking for a
thick- skinned
politician and I haven't found one yet.
But I -- let me tell you this, 27 percent of the U.S. --
of the officers in the
U.S. military say they'll resign from the service if
this "don't ask, don't tell"
policy is abandoned. And when the -- when Vice President
Gore says on
national television that he would demand a litmus test
for members of the
Joint Chiefs, that is gold, porcelain, the platinum for
the Republicans to use in
the fall campaign.
PRESS: And they will, but it won't work.
From the left, I'm Bill Press. Good night for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again
next time for
another edition of CROSSFIRE.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Slate Magazine <[email protected]> ( Slate Magazine <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 7-JAN-2000 07:44:29.00
SUBJECT: SLATE NEWS: Fri., Jan. 7, 2000
TO: Jason Furman ( CN=Jason Furman/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
SLATE NEWS: Fri., Jan. 7, 2000
--today's papers: Hooked on Debate
--the week/the spin: Cuba Getting Junior
today's papers
Hooked on Debate
By Scott Shuger
The WP leads with yesterday's announcement by House Republican
leaders that they would support a tax cut only one-seventh the size
of the $792 billion cuts package they put forward last year, which
was vetoed by President Clinton. The paper quotes Speaker Dennis
Hastert opining that there is a tax agreement with the White House
in the offing. USAT goes with the feds' new anti-terror measures,
including tighter performance standards for the companies that do
airport security screenings and a plan to be announced today by
Clinton to make government computers safer from attack. Its most
novel aspect: a college scholarship program that would give
students graduate and undergraduate tuition subsidies in return for
post-graduate government service as information technology
specialists. The NYT goes with the SEC's report stating that
PricewaterhouseCoopers, the world's largest accounting firm,
violated the rule prohibiting the firm's partners from having
investments in companies it audits. As a result, says the paper,
the government will check out the other major accounting firms'
compliance. The story seems oversold (by the SEC and by the NYT):
The paper reports that nearly half the violations resulted from
complications relating to the merger that created the firm, and no
examples are given of firm audits that were in any way rendered
dubious by prima facie investment conflicts. The LAT leads with the
White House decision to continue to delay implementation of the
NAFTA provision opening U.S. highways to Mexican trucks. The paper
quotes unnamed senior trade and State Dept. officials explaining
that the plan is to ensure that the matter is not resolved while Al
Gore is running for president, thus keeping the Teamsters, who
vehemently oppose the opening, from abandoning him. With the
exception of the WP's fronting of the SEC story, none of the leads
makes the others' fronts.
The WP and LAT front last night's GOP presidential candidate
debate, which also tops the WSJ front-page news box, but the late
metro edition of the NYT stuffs it. According to the coverage, the
debates were highlighted by 1) George W. Bush's declaration going
his father's famous pledge one better: "This is not only no new
taxes. This is tax cuts, so help me God." and 2) Bush and John
McCain arguing about campaign finance reform, with McCain defending
the compatibility of his reform stance with his recently exposed
letter writing to the FCC to force a decision concerning a TV
station that one of his major contributors wanted to purchase, and
Bush claiming that McCain's reform would "hurt the Republican
cause." All six of the GOP debaters came out against open service
of gays in the military, contradicting the stance favored the night
before by Al Gore and Bill Bradley in their debate.
The papers report that when asked if he would take the mantra "What
would Jesus do?" into the Oval Office, Bush replied, "I would take
an expression into the Oval Office of, 'Dear God, help me!" The
NYT says Alan Keyes added, "So would we." The WP and LAT attribute
the quip to Gary Bauer. The LAT reports that when Keyes criticized
McCain for saying he liked Nine Inch Nails, McCain climbed down
quickly, saying the band was a "poor choice."
The editorial pages seize on McCain's FCC letters, with the WP
saying he "badly overstepped the rules," and the NYT calling the
letters "improper." The WSJ says the real scandal is that unelected
bureaucrats at the FCC have power over large swaths of the private
economy and that the least our elected representatives can do is
ride herd on them.
The WP reports in a story inside that the Pentagon disclosed
yesterday that the explanation it offered during the Kosovo war of
how a passenger train came to be bombed had a flaw. The official
explanation at the time, that the U.S. pilot locked onto an empty
railroad bridge, and only after that did the train very quickly
come onto it, was buttressed by the Pentagon's showing of a
nose-cone video. But, says the WP, the Pentagon now admits the
video was shown to reporters at three times normal speed. The paper
notes that all other bombing videos released to the press during
the war were shown at normal speed. The Pentagon insists the speed
selection was inadvertent. In other words, they're willing to admit
to a mistake in a non-combat zone, when lots of supervisors are
involved, with lots of lead-time, and involving simple technology
but can't contemplate a mistake when none of these favorable
conditions obtain.
The WP and NYT run wire service stories reporting that according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of legal
abortions in the U.S. (for 1997, the latest year for which data is
available) is at its lowest point since 1978. The WP story says
that the CDC didn't try to figure out why the drop occurred. The
NYT says it did and mentions among the factors "possibly different
attitudes about the moral implications of abortion." Will there be
more study of this last question by the CDC or is the government
afraid to find out and/or publicize a possible result indicating an
increasing belief that abortion is immoral?
USAT reefers, and the other papers run inside, Major League
Baseball's decision that John Rocker must undergo psychological
testing before it decides whether or not to discipline him for his
recent disparaging remarks about gays and minorities. Today's
Papers thinks this makes sense, since prejudice is a mentally
disordered way of looking at the world. And hey, while we're at it,
how about psychological testing for Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan
and Pat Buchanan?
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said:
http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-todayspapers/index.asp
For a glossary of newspaper.terms used in Today's Papers, click
here:
http://www.slate.com/code/Explainer/Explainer.asp?Shov=9/7/99&idMessage=356
4
Also in today's Slate http://www.slate.com
Moneybox: Weekend Cocktail Chatter
http://www.slate.com/Code/Moneybox/Moneybox.asp?Show=1/6/008idMessage=4324
Were the Y2K Preparations in Vain?
http://www.slate.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show1/6/00&idMessage=431
9
The McCain Mutiny
http://www.slate.com/Code/chatterbox/chatterbox.asp?Show=1/6/008idMessage=4
320
the week/the spin
Cuba Getting Junior
By Matt Alsdorf and Jodi Kantor
The Immigration and Naturalization Service ruled that Eli n
Gonz lez should be reunited with his father in Cuba. Gonz lez's
Cuban-American relatives had argued that he should remain in the
United States after he was rescued from a shipwreck in which his
mother died. Protesters blocked traffic in Miami, and Gonz lez's
family promised to appeal the ruling, charging that the INS was
giving into blackmail by Castro. INS supporters countered that 1)
the ruling was based solely on legal concerns; and 2) the only
blackmail was Cuban-Americans' threats of political retribution
against the Clinton administration. The INS's spin: He's being
reunited with his family. Cuban-Americans' spin: He's being denied
a better life in the United States.
Al Gore and Bill Bradley debated in New Hampshire. In their third
meeting in a month, they clashed over health care and gun control
and agreed on support for gays in the military. But most pundits
said personality and leadership--not policy issues--were the true
points of contention: Gore deemed Bradley "too intellectually
removed" to deal with real-world problems; Bradley charged that
Gore was not removed enough from the "Washington bunker" to
generate creative solutions. The rosy Democratic spin: The frequent
debates help both candidates practice "crisper critiques of one
another and more polished defenses of their positions." The gloomy
Democratic spin: The constant sparring over character issues makes
them both less likable. (Slate's Jacob Weisberg offers his
assessment of the debate in "Ballot Box," and William Saletan
offers another take in "Frame Game.")
U.S. stock markets plunged. Tuesday's declines were the most severe
in more than a year: The Dow Jones industrial average fell 3.2
percent, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped 5.5 percent. Asian and
European markets followed suit. The apparent cause: Investors
waited for the new tax year to reap profits from recent stock
gains. The counterintuitive causes: Wall Street darling Alan
Greenspan was nominated for a fourth term as Federal Reserve
chairman, and Y2K economic disruptions never surfaced--both of
which increase the likelihood that the Fed will raise interest
rates. Wall Street shrugged off the decline as a "necessary and
expected" correction. Skeptics termed it an indication that
investors are "even more confused than usual about what stocks are
really worth these days."
Y2K came and went without terrorism or technological snafus.
Airplanes stayed airborne and ATMs dispensed cash as usual.
Observers said the Y2K bug's threat 1) was averted thanks to
diligent preparation; 2) had been exaggerated by greedy programmers
so that customers would commission expensive repairs; and 3) won't
pass until companies and governments have used their "backroom
systems," which were not repaired as thoroughly as critical
programs. ("International Papers" sums up the millennium coverage
from around the globe.)
Israel and Syria began peace talks. Syria wants to regain control
of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in 1967. Israel wants
security guarantees and the restoration of normal diplomatic
relations. The initial discussions were deemed "rocky," with each
side claiming that the other was not following the agenda. Israel
and Syria called the impasse a "crisis" that threatened to derail
the entire peace process. Skeptics charged it was manufactured to
convince Israeli and Syrian citizens that their representatives
bargained hard. The Clinton administration downplayed the dispute,
saying 1) no one expected a breakthrough in the talks' first round;
and 2) the difficulties show that "the two sides [are] getting into
the knotty issues." Separately, Israel and Palestine agreed to a
plan for Israeli troop withdrawls from parts of the West Bank.
Florida State won college football's national title. With a 46-29
Sugar Bowl victory over No. 2 Virginia Tech, the undefeated
Seminoles became the first team to hold a No. 1 Associate Press
ranking throughout the entire season. Sportswriters were happy for
1) Florida State receiver Peter Warrick, the undisputed star of the
game, who "redeemed" himself after last year's arrest and
suspension for theft; 2) Florida State coach Bobby Bowden, who got
his first undefeated season and second national championship in 40
years of coaching; and 3) the Virginia Tech players, who "put
season-long-criticism of their toughness to rest" with a valiant
comeback attempt.
Elizabeth Dole endorsed George W. Bush. In her long-expected
announcement, Dole likened Bush to Ronald Reagan and said he would
repair the presidency's tarnished image. Analysts called it a win
for 1) Bush, who gains support from women voters; 2) Dole, who
increases her chances of nabbing the vice presidential nomination;
and 3) John McCain, who can again cast "Bush as the charmed insider
and [himself] as the scrappy outsider."
Boris Yeltsin resigned. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin became
Russia's acting president and is expected to win the presidency by
a wide margin in March elections. In his surprise resignation
speech, Yeltsin admitted his failings. Pundits agreed he had
botched much of his job but also noted his shrewdness in 1)
capturing the world's attention on New Year's Eve; 2) cutting his
losses before his communism-busting legacy was further tainted by a
money-laundering scandal or the war in Chechnya; and 3) designating
his likely successor, who has immunized Yeltsin from prosecution.
La Nida is altering winter weather. The effects of the
cooler-than-normal Pacific Ocean currents include 1) balmy
temperatures on the East Coast; 2) tornadoes in Kentucky and
Mississippi; and 3) cool weather in California. Midwesterners ran
for cover. Easterners celebrated with "giddiness usually reserved
for the first days of spring." Pessimists called the weather a
"spooky" reminder of Mother Nature's power and predicted further
climatic changes from the greenhouse effect.
The Indian hijacking crisis was resolved. The still-unidentified
Islamic terrorists released their 155 hostages after India agreed
to free three of their jailed comrades. The hijackers were given 10
hours to leave Afghanistan and have presumably vanished into
Pakistan. India accused Pakistan of backing the hijacking and
giving shelter to the terrorists. Pakistan accused India of playing
politics with the hijacking. The rest of the world again worried
about a nuclear confrontation between the two countries. The
Washington Post denounced Afghanistan and Pakistan for "trying to
have it both ways on terrorism. They play host to terrorist groups,
yet wax indignant when terrorists hijack an aircraft."
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said: http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-spin/index.asp
The Internet's informed look at politics and culture -- SLATE. What
Matters. (http://www.slate.com)
SLATE offers a variety of e-mail delivery services that enable you
to get your favorite SLATE articles delivered right to your in-box.
Go to http://www.slate.com/Code/Reg3/emailservices.aspto see
what's available.
For additional information about SLATE, go to
http://www.slate.com/code/reg3/memberservices.asp for SLATE Reader
Services.
This delivery powered by Exactis.com http://www.exactis.com
Copyright (c) 2000 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights
reserved.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Slate Magazine <[email protected]> ( Slate Magazine <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-JAN-2000 07:12:58.00
SUBJECT: SLATE NEWS: Thurs., Jan. 6, 2000
TO: Jason Furman ( CN=Jason Furman/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
SLATE NEWS: Thurs., Jan. 6, 2000
--today's papers: Cogito Ergonomics
--international papers: Stormy Weather
today's papers
Cogito Ergonomics
By Eric Roston
The USA Today leads with the INS's decision to return six-year-old
Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba by Jan. 14. All other papers
front the story. The Washington Post goes with Labor Secretary
Alexis Herman's backpedaling on an OSHA directive making employers
responsible for safety and health violations in employees' home
offices. The Wall Street Journal tops its World-Wide box with
yesterday's Democratic presidential debate at the University of New
Hampshire. The NYT goes local, and off-leads the uncertain status
of fighting between Russians and Chechens in Grozny. The LAT, which
leads with the governor's State of the State address, off-leads
Gonzalez and reefers the Labor Department story.
Officially, the INS judged the case based on law and research, but
anonymous officials told the NYT that the administration did not
want to damage relations with Cuba when it is trying to forge new
contacts there. Justice Department officials indicated they would
oppose threatened legal moves by Gonzalez' angry relatives, who are
hosting the boy in Miami. No decision has been made on how Elian
will be reunited with his father: The INS offered to bring Juan
Gonzalez to the States to pick the boy up, but Gonzalez has said
it's the Americans' responsibility to bring him home. Gonzalez
senior may be under pressure from the Cuban government, the LAT and
Post report.
Each story carries President Clinton's boast that his
administration has kept the boy's plight "out of politics," but the
two Times dispute that statement. Castro, whose name isn't even
mentioned in the Post, is treated with kid gloves in the NYT. Only
the LAT reports that Castro has called the situation an abduction.
Elian has been roped into someone else's game: He is the center of
an "international tug of war" in the WP lede and a front-page LAT
caption, and the "center of a political tug-of-war" in the USAT.
The NYT turns him into "the central object in a tug-of-war." How
can the situation almost unanimously be a political "tug of war" if
so little is mentioned of who's tugging on the other end?
A flurry of calls between Labor and the White House resulted in
Herman recanting the home office directive, the Post reports. The
confusion shows that telecommuting has changed the workplace so,
that traditional rules and regulations may no longer apply--or
perhaps no one's sure how to apply them. Withdrawing the directive,
which first made news Tuesday, may not affect the policy behind it.
Almost 20 million people in the US work at home.
The NYT and WP front the S.E.C.'s filing of a civil suit against
stock guru Yun Soo Oh Park, "Tokyo Joe" of Internet fame. Park,
accused of committing four counts of fraud, is said to have advised
followers to buy certain stocks, which he then sold on the sly as
their orders lifted the stocks' prices. In 1998, he allegedly
accepted 100,000 shares in a cigar maker and Boca Raton deli-owner;
in return, he is said to have recommended the stock to his
customers, without revealing his relationship to the company. The
S.E.C.'s complaint is its most aggressive move yet against an
Internet stock wiz.
The NYT, Post (in their business sections), and WSJ report that
Amazon.com Inc.'s fourth-quarter revenue, $650 million, failed to
match analysts' "whisper number," which in some circles doubled
earlier, published estimates of $500 million. Stockholders were not
impressed: investors beat the stock down 15 percent, lowering its
market capitalization by $4 billion, to $24 billion.
Coverage of the fourth Bradley-Gore debate is pot luck. The NYT and
WSJ dwell on both candidates' strengthening of earlier statements
defending gays in the military. The Post summarizes the debate
topics as "guns, health, ability" in its headline and mentions Sen.
Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Gore in its subhead. The WSJ
highlights in its World-Wide column (as opposed to its story)
Bradley's accusation that Gore contorted his health care plan by
claiming it would hurt minorities. According to the LAT, the debate
centered on who might be a stronger president. A NYT front-pager
reports that McCain, in the midst of a fight against the power of
money in politics, twice in the past couple months urged the FCC to
act on an issue that would benefit a major contributor to his
campaign.
Chechens claim to have seized a village southwest of Grozny;
Russians said the fighters fled the capital in desperation. NYT
Moscow bureau chief Michael Gordon reports from North Ossetia, a
Russian republic west of Chechnya: "It is impossible to verify
either side's claims since the Russian military has not taken
reporters to Chechnya for three days."
Dept. of Misplaced Rhetorical Imagery: In light of last year's
school shootings, the LAT lead headline is somewhat startling:
"[Governor] Davis Issues a Call to Arms for Better Teachers,
Schools." Coincidentally, New York Governor George Pataki, in the
NYT lead, outlined changes in practices for recruiting teachers,
saying that "right now, Colin Powell can't teach in the New York
schools that he grew up in." The LAT story explains that Davis used
images of warfare in his State of the State speech to drum up
enthusiasm for hiring and training new teachers. The "war for the
future," he said, "will be fought school to school, classroom to
classroom, desk to desk." Today's Papers knows what he means, but
had hoped imagery of classroom warfare might be left in the past.
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said:
http://bs.slate.com/bbs/slate-todayspapers/index.asp
For a glossary of newspaper terms used in Today's Papers, click
here:
http://www.slate.com/code/Explainer/Explainer.asp?Show=9/7/99&idMessage-356
4
Also in today's Slate http://www.slate.com
Is George W. Bush a "Weak" Governor?
http://www.slate.com/Code/explainer/explainer.asp?Show=1/5/00&idMessage=430
7
The Case for Placebos
http://www.slate.com/OtherMags/00-01-03/OtherMags.asp?Shov=11/29/99
The Week/The Spin: Elian Nation
http://www.slate.com/Spin/00-01-03/Spin.asp?Show=11/30/99
international papers
Stormy Weather
By Alexander Chancellor
Several European papers led Wednesday with the stock market
declines in the United States and Europe that were partially based
on expectations of interest-rate hikes. In an editorial Wednesday
on the reappointment of Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal
Reserve Bank, the Financial Times of London said that the move will
reassure investors but questioned whether it is also "the best news
for the long-term management of the US economy." The FT said, [T]o
appoint any individual for a fourth term risks over-personalising
the institution of the Federal Reserve Bank, and could discourage a
more open debate about policy." La Repubblica of Rome ran a
front-page comment Wednesday comparing the reappointment of
Greenspan to the Italian peasant tradition of carrying in
procession a statue of the Holy Protector to placate the weather.
"Yesterday Bill Clinton raised the blessed icon of Alan Greenspan
in the world's central square against the sudden and furious storm
that is sweeping through the stock markets," it said.
The French papers were more concerned with the real storm that
caused huge damage in France in the past week. Le Figaro of Paris
led its front page Wednesday with an estimate that the storm will
cost the French economy between 60 billion and 70 billion French
francs, about 3 percent of the state budget. However, the paper
said it could also have positive effects on France's economic
growth. According to a report in the Times of London, the storm
brought down 270 million trees in France, ranging from 18th-century
oaks in Paris gardens to entire plantations in the Vosges
Mountains. The French historian Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie was
reported as saying that France's vast woodlands had suffered
nothing comparable since detailed records began in the reign of
Louis XIV--"Since 1660 at least, there has been no phenomenon on
such a vast scale."
In an editorial Wednesday, Le Monde celebrated the first
anniversary of the euro, the single European currency. "The event
was historic," the paper said. "For the first time, 11 nations
agreed to renounce their monetary sovereignty and to share it.
Anti-European militants, American experts, and speculators of all
kinds had explained for years that the project was impossible. One
year later, they must admit they were wrong: the euro exists, it
has established itself as one of the world's great currencies and,
better still, it has kept most of its promises."
In a gloomy editorial Wednesday, the Moscow Times attacked the
legacy of former President Boris Yeltsin and questioned the merits
of his successor, Vladimir Putin. "Everyone talks about the Yeltsin
years as the reform years," the paper said. "But the fact is, there
is not a single major reform that was not begun by [former Soviet
leader Mikhail] Gorbachev and at least slightly tarnished or rolled
back under Yeltsin. And now, with this less-than-heroic
departure--immunity from prosecution tightly in hand--Yeltsin has
sealed it that way. Yeltsin's legacy will be like Yeltsin himself,
particularly during his second term: inarticulate, confused,
self-absorbed, weak."
On Putin, the Moscow Times said there is "a shocking amount of
wishful thinking masquerading as analysis." It said his record so
far is "dispiriting." He did nothing about scandals at the FSB (the
successor agency to the KGB) when he was its director, and "[a]s
prime minister, his only claim to fame has been to seize upon a
truly bad situation in Chechnya as an excuse to wage an imperial
war, one that punishes civilians in the name of protecting them."
In an interview Monday with La Stampa of Turin, Mikhail Gorbachev
said Putin would do anything for victory in Chechnya, whatever the
cost in human lives. "Putin knows better than anybody that in the
event of defeat--or simply of no victory--his position could
rapidly deteriorate," Gorbachev said. "So he will do everything to
win, at any cost, and whatever the number of deaths." Gorbachev
added that Putin is part of the Yeltsin "oligarchy" and will not
carry out the reforms that the West hoped for. "The regime will not
change, there will be no fight against corruption," he said. "Above
all, the interests and privileges of the oligarchy will be
protected."
During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed to
Winston Churchill that Gen. Charles de Gaulle be ousted as leader
of the Free French movement and fobbed off with the governorship of
Madagascar, according to a report in the Times of London Wednesday.
The paper was reporting on secret wartime documents just released
by the British Public Record Office. They show that neither
Roosevelt nor Churchill could stand de Gaulle. In a May 1943
"personal and most secret" memo to Churchill, Roosevelt called de
Gaulle's attitude "well-nigh intolerable" and accused him of
stirring up vicious propaganda in North Africa and attempting to
cause strife between the Arabs and the Jews in Algiers. When
visiting Washington, Churchill fired off a series of telegrams to
his government colleagues in London, proposing in one of them that
de Gaulle be "eliminated" as a political force. He called the
general a "vain and even malignant man," and added, "He hates
England and has left a trail of Anglophobia behind everywhere."
Roosevelt was a little kinder. "De Gaulle may be an honest man, but
he has the messianic complex," he wrote.
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said:
http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-internatpapers/index.asp
The Internet's informed look at politics and culture -- SLATE. What
Matters. (http://www.slate.com)
SLATE offers a variety of e-mail delivery services that enable you
to get your favorite SLATE articles delivered right to your in-box.
Go to http://www.slate.com/Code/Reg3/emailservices.asp to see
what's available.
For additional information about SLATE, go to
http://www.slate.com/code/reg3/memberservices.asp for SLATE Reader
Services.
This delivery powered by Exactis.com http://www.exactis.com
Copyright (c) 2000 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights
reserved.