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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (23242)10/10/2007 11:04:54 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Hillary and Gore in Bitter Feud

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:53 PM

Article Font Size


A new book reveals the deep division that developed between Vice President Al Gore and first lady Hillary Clinton during Bill Clinton’s years in the White House.

“For Love of Politics — Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years” by Sally Bedell Smith claims that Hillary not only tried to usurp Al Gore’s role as vice president, she cost him the presidency in the 2000 election by draining funds and resources away from his campaign in favor of her Senate bid. [Editor’s Note: Get Sally Bedell’s book “For Love of Politics — Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years” — Go here now. ]

The bitter feelings between Gore and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary are said to persist to this day, leading some observers to speculate that Gore could enter the 2008 race after all — a move that might prove a final payback to Hillary.

The rift between the then-new first lady and the vice president began to develop just days after Bill Clinton’s inauguration, when he appointed Hillary to head his healthcare task force, according to an excerpt, published in the November issue of Vanity Fair, from Smith’s book.

“The move took nearly all his top officials by surprise, including Al Gore,” she writes. “Bill had invested Gore with considerable responsibility, but his failure to confide in his vice president was a telling sign of the real pecking order.”

Before long, administration officials came to realize that Hillary would play a part in all of Bill’s decisions. “He would say, ‘Hillary thinks this. What do you think?’ White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum told Smith.

Staff members began calling Hillary “the Supreme Court,” the final arbiter on many issues.

Gore, meanwhile, was being increasingly marginalized. White House insiders recalled meetings where Hillary urged Bill to discount Gore’s advice, telling him: “Bill, you are the president.”

Smith observed: “The Clintons resented the Gores because they were products of Washington’s prestigious private schools and its social network . . .

“Hillary always had an undercurrent of competition with Al Gore that burst into the open from time to time.”

On Nov. 6, 1998, New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced that he would not run for a fifth term.

“The Moynihan seat had in fact been on the Clintons’ radar for months,” Smith discloses, and Hillary would eventually campaign for the seat while Gore campaigned to succeed Bill in the White House.

Even before the campaigns began, the “center of gravity” in the Clintons’ relationship had been shifting from Bill to Hillary.

Bill was a lame duck, crippled by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and she was “the rising political star,” according to Smith’s book, which will officially be published on Oct. 23.

“Hillary’s ascendancy had a significant impact on the presidential prospects of Al Gore, diverting attention and resources from his candidacy and adding to the growing tensions between the Gores and the Clintons over Bill’s involvement with Lewinsky,” Smith writes.

On the day he announced his candidacy for president, Gore said in a televised interview that he thought Bill Clinton’s behavior was “terribly wrong.” When Bill heard about the comment, he “erupted” in anger.

Bill was still a sitting president, in a position to give Gore’s campaign major boosts, but according to Smith, “in 1999 those resources were diverted from Gore to Hillary ‘in a big way,’ said one member of the Gore team. ‘The Clintons come first.’”

That year, Hillary’s office had 86 major speeches listed on the White House Web site — four times as many as those listed for her husband and Gore combined.

One dramatic example of the “contest” between Hillary and Gore came in September 1999 when the Federal Trade Commission was set to release a report on violence in the media.

“Under ordinary circumstances, a vice president running for the presidency would have first call on publicizing the report,” Smith notes. “But Hillary insisted she should handle the rollout.”

When the decision was made to have Gore and the Clintons make more or less simultaneous announcements, “this did not sit well” with Gore and his vice presidential running mate Joe Lieberman, and they decided to break the news on their own.

Perhaps more significantly, Hillary was also competing with Gore for campaign contributions.

Bill and Hillary “raised millions for themselves, distracting attention from the presidential race, siphoning off Democratic money, and further angering the vice president and his team,” discloses Smith, a former New York Times reporter whose other works include books about the Kennedy White House and Princess Diana.

She tells that when a friend of Tipper Gore planned a fundraiser in Los Angeles, Hillary insisted on being invited — “then shocked the vice president’s supporters by soliciting donations for herself in front of Tipper.”

The result of the Gore-Hillary clash, according to Smith: “The colliding agendas of the president, first lady, and vice president were gifts to the Republicans.”

When Hillary easily won her Senate seat, rumors “almost immediately” started about a Hillary run for the White House in 2004 or 2008, Smith writes.

Gore, meanwhile, went down to a bitter defeat to George Bush after a legal wrangle over Florida votes that lasted 36 days.

After the outcome was determined, Gore and Bill Clinton met in the Oval Office on Dec. 21. “It was an unpleasant encounter, as Gore forthrightly blamed Bill’s scandals, while Bill rebuked Gore for failing to make the most of their successful record,” Smith reveals.

“Afterward, Bill told [presidential adviser] Sidney Blumenthal they had parted after ‘patching everything up,’ but in fact the mutual resentments among the Clintons and Gore persisted.”

[Editor’s Note": Get Sally Bedell’s book “For Love of Politics — Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years”— Go here now. ]

newsmax.com



To: calgal who wrote (23242)10/12/2007 12:49:05 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Prosecutor and the Salesman
Rudy and Romney rumble over tax-cutting credentials.

BY COLLIN LEVY
Friday, October 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

If you'd told voters that 2008 would see two supposedly liberal Northeast Republicans duking it out for the title of most conservative, someone probably would have come to take your temperature. And yet it's a good year for supply-siders when a former New York mayor and a former Massachusetts governor are going mano a mano over who is the baddest tax cutter east of the Mississippi.

Mr. Giuliani calls Mr. Romney the governor from "Taxachusetts." Mr. Romney, who has bragged that he's the only candidate to sign the Anti-Tax Pledge, says he thinks the former mayor's claims to be the better fiscal conservative are "baloney." You know that hurts.

The fiscal issue has come front and center because the immediate prize is New Hampshire, where Mr. Giuliani has shaved Mr. Romney's summertime lead to a dead heat. Granite State voters have always been a tracking stock for economic conservatives. And with a good group of conservative economic advisers, Mr. Romney is on the offensive, running a series of radio ads and statements intended to build his brand as the natural heir to Reaganesque economic policies.

Whether the former Massachusetts governor has the chops to win this particular fight is another question. Anti-tax groups like the Club for Growth have been lukewarm on his record. The Cato Institute gave him a "C" on its governors' report card in 2006, a grade that report author Steve Slivinski says indicates a "placeholder governor"--not doing any major harm, but not doing much good either.

On the campaign trail, he's talked a good game. He's pledged a continuation of the Bush tax-cut policies--making the tax cuts permanent, eliminating the death tax and so on. The Bad: He refused to endorse the same Bush tax cuts in 2003 as governor, and loudly opposed the flat tax. The Ugly: He raised fees and closed "loopholes" in the business tax code, effectively increasing the tax burden in Massachusetts. And his biggest accomplishment was a dubious one--passing a state health-care plan that strikes a lot of Democrats as a good national model.

Some of that may be a product of his environment--hopefully a lot of it. His campaign has made much of the fact that his accomplishments in the Bay State came despite having to wrangle with an opposition legislature. He held the line on new broad-based taxes during the state's budget crisis in 2003, not an easy feat. And he gets credit for fighting to a standstill a bill that would have retroactively hiked capital gains taxes.

Battling the Massachusetts Democratic legislature was undoubtedly tough--but Mr. Romney wasn't the first, or the most successful, in taking it on over fiscal issues. That honor goes to his predecessor, former Gov. Paul Cellucci. Mr. Cellucci couldn't get a tax cut through the legislature either. So he found another way to do it. He went to the voters, putting a referendum on the ballot in 2000 and winning.

The income-tax reductions that occurred during Mr. Romney's own governorship began with the Cellucci ballot measure. Did we mention that Mr. Cellucci has endorsed Rudy Giuliani?

Yeah, that's a little awkward, though Mr. Cellucci has been at pains to say he's not trying to stick it to Mitt. He just thinks Rudy did a better job than Mitt did, and is better qualified than Mitt is. No offense or anything.

What is Mr. Giuliani's claim to fame for pro-growth fiscal conservatives? He has made hay of the alleged fact that he cut taxes 23 times while mayor of New York. Longtime City Hall watchers say touting the number needlessly exaggerates a pretty classy record. Before his time in office no mayor of New York City had ever made tax cutting a priority, yet he did it every year--with pretty decent results. Having taken office with a $2.3 billion deficit, he executed a total turnaround of the city's economy, leaving residents with the lowest tax burden they had seen in three decades. New York City's growth rate well outpaced the national average, even in a strong economy.

But the former mayor is not without his own dancing fiscal skeletons. In 1994, Hizzoner criticized then Gov. George Pataki's big income-tax cut as potentially ruinous to the city, echoing the contentions of his chief Democratic rival, Mario Cuomo, whom he had endorsed against Mr. Pataki. Jack Kemp, campaigning for Gov. Pataki at the time, was flummoxed. Rudy may share our conservative economic principles, the supply-side saint told a Buffalo newspaper, but then he turns around and supports "Mr. Tax and Spend Liberal. . . . it hurts the party and confuses people."

Far from backing down, the mayor shot back that he was a much better judge of the interests of the city he was elected to serve. An equally unsightly scenario played out when he opposed getting rid of the city's 12.5% income tax surcharge in the late '90s--putting him to the left of Democratic City Council Member Peter Vallone.

But Mr. Giuliani did plenty of good too. He fought for hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts for the city and didn't mince words doing it. In October of 2001, facing the economic devastation of September 11, reporters asked the departing mayor why he didn't go ahead and raise taxes to fill the budget shortfall? Because, he answered, that would be a "dumb, stupid, idiotic and moronic" idea.

The bottom line: Both men are pretty B+ (we grade on a curve around here). Both have good but imperfect tax records, and both have a serious albatross: Mr. Giuliani ended up on the wrong side of the line-item veto fight by suing to prevent its use by President Clinton; the Massachusetts governor gave national Democrats a free preview of Hillarycare. But it's also fair to note that Mr. Giuliani, while citing the Constitution, was protecting New York City's interest in federal pork. Mr. Romney's health-care plan, on the other hand, seemed more like a ploy to raise his presidential profile in the national media.

If elected, either man would find himself in familiar territory, with both houses of Congress likely controlled by Democrats and possibly even by a wider margin than they currently are. Mr. Giuliani is a prosecutor. Mr. Romney is a salesman. Which would Nancy Pelosi prefer?

Supply-siders might answer that question for themselves and then choose the other one.

Ms. Levy is a senior editorial writer at The Wall Street Journal, based in Washington.

opinionjournal.com