SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (1252)6/22/2003 1:43:16 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1604
 
Two Years After White House Exit, Clintons Shaping Democratic Party


By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2003; Page A01
URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17534-2003Jun20.html

Thirty months after leaving the White House draped in controversy, the Clintons are again dominating Democratic politics in Washington and beyond.

Former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) are grabbing headlines almost daily, raising millions of dollars for Democratic campaigns and doling out political advice to all who will listen, which includes most of the leading candidates to challenge President Bush in 2004. The Clintons are easily the hottest draws for political events and fundraising appeals, much more so than the party's nine presidential candidates and two congressional leaders, according to several party officials.

At the same time, top officials from the Clinton administration are taking, or tightening, control over several of the party's most influential political groups. Some of the most notable former Clinton aides and advisers -- John D. Podesta, Bruce Reed, Mike Lux, Harold Ickes and others -- are playing prominent roles in key think tanks and new fundraising ventures. They provide the former first family with continued sources of power to tap now and in the future -- perhaps in 2008, when many expect Hillary Clinton to run for president.

Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the Clintons are creating an "extension" of what they started during "their days in the White House." He should know: Hillary Clinton has emerged as one of the DSCC's best fundraisers, and the former president told Corzine he'll pitch in soon. "He will be very helpful," Corzine said .

Hillary Clinton, who has raised as much as $500,000 a pop at fundraisers at the couple's house in the District, is planning to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars for fellow Democratic senators during her national book tour.

The Clinton resurgence is getting mixed reviews from the party faithful. Many Democrats who had worried that the Clinton scandals would haunt the party until the first couple vanished from the political scene now openly embrace the two. While Democrats, in general, have failed to capitalize on mounting job losses and other economic problems under Bush, the Clintons are getting renewed credit and respect within the party for the boom years that marked Bill Clinton's second term. Since he left office, the stock market has dropped while budget deficits and unemployment numbers have soared.

"The farther away we get from the [Clinton] presidency, the more the focus is on the substantive accomplishments," said Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.). "It's getting far easier to not only associate with, but embrace the former president and the senator."

Washington's two most Clinton-friendly institutions are the Senate -- where Hillary Clinton has impressed many colleagues with her work ethic and fundraising prowess -- and the Democratic National Committee, where the former president remains a major force.

Still, some Democrats want the Clintons to go away. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently did focus groups around the country with Democratic-leaning voters and found widespread resentment of both Clintons, according to a Democratic aide familiar with surveys conducted in several cities.

Many focus group participants called the former president "immoral, smooth, crooked" and dishonest, the aide said, while Hillary Clinton was seen as an "opportunist." "It gives us a brand we just don't need," the aide said.

"The rehashing of the negatives is something we all wish would go away," said Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). But the Clintons "clearly have the ability to excite people, probably more than anyone else in the party."

Some Republicans seize on the Clintons' unpopularity to raise money for their political efforts. Senate Republicans have a "Stop Hillary Now" link on their Web site.

Other GOP leaders, however, say the Clintons' most negative legacies -- including the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal -- are losing some of their bite. "In time, things fade," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "Senator Clinton has done a very good job of rehabilitating them."

Hillary Clinton -- who is taking her turn as the family's public face and political force -- is widely expected to play a leading role in next year's presidential and Senate campaigns. She is promoting her best-selling book "Living History" and hitting up donors with energy and stagecraft reminiscent of a national campaign. The newspaper Roll Call recently reported that the DSCC has arranged for the senator to host at least seven Democratic fundraisers before August, all coordinated with her book tour.

While Hillary Clinton remains one of the most divisive figures in contemporary politics, polls routinely show she could jump into the crowded Democratic presidential field tomorrow as the frontrunner. Many believe she is preparing for a run in 2008, soon enough to satisfy her ambitions, long enough for bad memories of family scandals to fade, at least partially. A family friend said there is little doubt she will run in 2008 if Bush wins reelection. Hillary Clinton might face a challenge from another Clinton White House figure. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the Clinton administration's energy secretary, was in town this week privately sounding like he would run in '08, according a Democratic official.

Bill Clinton remains deeply involved in party politics, too, although he has told congressional leaders he will spend most of this year raising money for his presidential library, giving paid speeches and finishing his book. He speaks frequently with Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence McAuliffe and advises presidential candidates and congressional leaders on strategy. "They smartly call for advice," said McAuliffe.

A Clinton friend said he thinks the former president and Arkansas governor might run for mayor of New York in 2006.

The DNC recently sent out its first fundraising plea of the year signed by the former president. And DCCC Chairman Robert T. Matsui (Calif.) sent him a list of House seats the Democrats are targeting for 2004, hoping Clinton will help raise money for the effort.

The Clintons will have several new conduits for power soon.

Podesta, the final chief of staff in the Clinton White House, is launching what many Democrats predict will become the most influential think tank on the left -- the American Majority Institute. A top Democratic official said Hillary Clinton has been intimately involved in creating the group, although it is designed to benefit the entire party.

The Clintons already have strong ties to another key party organization, the Democratic Leadership Council. The former president ran as a DLC candidate and remains closely associated with the politically centrist organization. Bruce Reed, director of domestic policy in the Clinton White House, runs the DLC and its Progress and Prosperity Project, which it bills as "developing the next generation of New Democratic ideas."

Harold Ickes, a top political aide in the Clinton White House, is talking to donors about raising tens of millions of dollars for next year's presidential nominee. "Those of us who know about it just refer to it as the 'media fund,' " said Ickes.

Campaign finance laws prohibit Hillary Clinton from helping Ickes, but the former president can help raise money for the group, which many officials expect him to do.

Ickes also works closely with Mike Lux, another former political adviser in the Clinton White House, who is running American Family Voices, a group planning to weigh in on policy fights this summer and fall with television commercials.

"The Clintons are supportive of a lot of these efforts that are being developed, but it's not centered on them or driven by them," said Lux.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company



To: calgal who wrote (1252)6/22/2003 1:51:10 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1604
 
Congressional continuity

By Oliver North

Herman Kahn, the brilliant thinker who founded the Hudson Institute, used to call it "thinking the unthinkable." Edward Teller, inventor of the hydrogen bomb, described it as "prudent planning for the ultimate catastrophe." Bill Baker, the genius from Bell Labs, once told me it was the "most difficult engineering challenge" he ever faced. And Gen. Andy Goodpaster, the nation's first national security adviser, called it, "a strategy for democratic survival."
They were all correct, and they were all talking about the same thing — a tightly held, top-secret program they helped design to ensure that the government of the United States could never be "decapitated."
From the summer of 1981 until the autumn of 1983, these four remarkable men, and a small handful of others, including some who remain in government service today, convened regularly in a conference room of the Old Executive Office Building, next door to the White House.
We called them the "Wise Men" — and they were. They thought through and planned the deployment of a multibillion-dollar system to minimize the chance that a Soviet missile, a terrorist, an errant weapon of mass destruction or a natural disaster could ever leave the United States bereft of civilian leadership as specified in the U.S. Constitution.
As directed by President Reagan, the first task for the "Wise Men" was to ensure that the office of the presidency — and particularly the president's role as commander in chief — would survive the most daunting threats imaginable.
None of us involved in "The Project" ever wanted the awesome power of the U.S. armed forces to be out of the control of an elected president or a constitutionally mandated successor. Congress agreed, and secretly appropriated the necessary funds. And until the terror attack of September 11, 2001, the system the "Wise Men" helped create was never used in an emergency.
Thankfully, on that terrible Tuesday, all the procedures and equipment put in place almost two decades before worked as planned. And while late-night comedians joked about Vice President Richard Cheney being at an "undisclosed location" for seemingly endless days — everyone understood why he was not at his desk in the West Wing of the White House.
Unfortunately, there are still unresolved vulnerabilities in our Continuity of Government program. When I left work on "The Project" late in 1983, plans were still being devised for ensuring that the nation would never be without a Congress. In 1995, the Clinton administration decided to abandon the Congressional Relocation Site — at the Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia. Then came September 11, and just weeks later, Anthrax-laden letters in Senate offices. While the nation grieved and girded for war, some in Washington wondered, how would government continue to function if large numbers of congressmen and senators were suddenly killed or incapacitated?
Last year a bipartisan Continuity of Government Commission was formed by the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution to explore the matter. The commission's members include former House Speakers Tom Foley, Washington Democrat, and Newt Gingrich, Georgia Republican, former House Minority Leader Robert Michel, Illinois Republican, former Sen. Alan K. Simpson, Wyoming Republican, and other prominent past members of Congress and former Cabinet secretaries. They wisely decided to focus on the House of Representatives.
The Constitution's Framers were adamant that members of the House be directly elected by the people, and therefore the Constitution requires special elections to fill open House seats. Unlike senators, who can be appointed by governors when vacancies occur, there is no provision for the appointment of temporary House members. The Constitution also requires a quorum of a majority of members to conduct official business — which is interpreted as a majority of the living House members to be present. This raises several disconcerting possibilities, including a handful of surviving members conducting House proceedings on their own, or a House unable to conduct business because a majority of its members are alive but incapacitated.
The commission's first report, issued this month, recommends a constitutional amendment allowing governors to appoint temporary House members from a list of successors compiled by each duly elected congressman. As might be expected in Washington, there are those with other ideas.
Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, favors a constitutional amendment permitting governors to make temporary House appointments when more than 25 percent of the House is killed or incapacitated. Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, puts that threshold at 50 percent and adds the requirement that the temporary appointees must be from the same political party as the members they're replacing. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat, proposes allowing surviving members of Congress to make temporary appointments. Each of these ideas require amending the Constitution — an event many citizens regard about as favorably as contracting anthrax.
Meanwhile, options short of tinkering with the Constitution don't seem to be on the table. The focus thus far is on the morbid task of replacing those who are dead. Why not, as the "Wise Men" did two decades ago, start with the living — and try to keep them that way while preserving the constitutional construct?
Sections 4 and 5 of Article I of the Constitution are mute as to how or where Congress is to convene. And Section 2 of the 20th Amendment simply requires that "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year." It does not specify the manner in which that assembly must take place. Twenty years ago, we looked at the available technology and found ways to preserve constitutional government for the executive branch. Can we find a way to use fiber-optic cables, computer connectivity, biometric identifiers and myriad other technologies to convene Congress from the relative safety of 435 districts? If that's possible, it might be easier to begin there — rather than starting with a 28th Amendment.

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030621-110756-2690r.htm