Washington, D. C.
October 2, 1997
Political Update
I was listening to one of our week-end commentary shows on Sunday and had trouble believing my ears. Here was a gaggle of our most conservative columnists rating the best and worst moves of President Bill Clinton for the past week and these very critical journalists couldn’t think of any bad moves – and they fought over a myriad of activities to rate the best.
The President has become a more commanding political figure in recent
months. His political business is in great shape. His approval ratings
are in the mid-60′s. He has the Republican Congress frightened to death that he will continue to run over them politically. I told a friend he’s
gotten cocky – and that is suiting his politics nicely. All is well in
his world – except for the nagging scandals.
With his electoral career behind him, he is working to build a bi-partisan coalition on issues which he want to be the legacy of his Presidency – focusing on issues that are important to him – like free trade and race relations. My commentator friends talked about his use of a trip to Little Rock to his high school reunion where he reflected on the 35th anniversary of the use of Federal troops to integrate his alma mater (before he got there); his strong speech to the AFL-CIO convention selling his free trade stance; and a host of other opportunities that he took to sell his visions.
He was working on two tough issues last week – race and trade.
Everyone who knows Bill Clinton knows that race relations are one of his
real “hot buttons.” Having grown up in the segregated South and come of
age politically at the time of the Civil Rights movement, he has a deep and sincere commitment to improving race relations in the United States. He recently appointed a commission to study the problem broadly and to make recommendations on ways to weave the American racial fabric more compatibly.
Fast Track for Trade???
With an important, trade oriented trip to Latin American scheduled for mid October and the visit of China’s President Jiang Zemin at the end of the month, President Clinton’s hopes to focus on his role as the leader of free trade in the world. But back in Washington, the Congress is preparing a possible embarrassment for him, just on the eve of these important
meetings.
A not-so-funny thing is happening to the presidential initiative on trade.
The President wants fast track authority to allow him to negotiate freely with trading partners without the fear that Congress will pick apart his agreements. Every President in recent memory has had the authority – but that was before trade became such a controversial and politically charged issue.
After failing to get fast track on track in the last Congress, the Administration has cautiously developed a plan for action. The key problem is that Democrats in Congress oppose fast track – or anything that looks like free trade initiatives. The Democratic House Leader, Richard Gephardt has made his protectionist attitude the baseline of his opposition to the President and, more importantly, Vice President Al Gore as he plans his own campaign to succeed Clinton in 2000.
The Democrats, reflecting the views of their friends in the labor movement, want “fair trade,” a code for trade agreements containing provisions on environmental protection and strict imposition of labor laws.
These two provisions are anathema to the Republicans who support free trade – American Business style. The Administration is putting a full court press on to get enough votes to pass the bill.
The Clinton administration have targeted 75 Democratic votes in the House as “winnable” – a number far higher than I would have expected. These would include a total of the Members who have said they are supporting fast track, leaning that way or have taken no view. But the number of hard votes in support is probably between 20 and 30, and one White House lobbyist said the total Democratic votes for passage in the House probably will not rise above 50 or so. Meanwhile, the number of Democrats opposed is estimated at 110 solid Democratic votes against fast track.
Republican lawmakers have kept their vote counts close to the vest, but the legislative arithmetic dictates that there must be strong majority GOP support to get to the 218 votes needed to win in the House. In the Senate, commanding a majority will be easier, supporters say, but getting the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster is less certain.
The President has significant problems with both parties. The Republicans see this as a chance to get even. He is asking them to deliver heroic numbers of votes for a bill which his own party will criticize as unfair – and what has he done for them lately.
The Democrats, in addition to being philosophically opposed to the bill are chafing at the attention that his team has given to the Republicans on this measure – shutting them out of considerations on the matter.
Administration officials are learning, to their dismay, that the politics of the fast-track bill are proving more difficult than the 1993 NAFTA vote.
The NAFTA issue was specific: whether to expand trade with Mexico. The fast-track issue, by contrast, is about a process to widen trade opportunities world-wide. And the Congress is very different now than in 1994. The election that year brought a sea change in Congressional attitudes on internationalism – and issues like immigration, foreign aid and trade do not enjoy the comfortable majorities that they had in previous years.
The president needs to get the bill passed so that he, like his predecessors, will be able to negotiate free-trade agreements and send them to Congress for a simple up or down vote. In the absence of fast-track authority, supporters say, trade agreements are nearly impossible because other countries know that what they negotiate with a president can be rewritten by Congress. The problem for Clinton is that fast-track opponents in the labor movement are just as vigorous as they were in the NAFTA debate, but business support is comparatively lackadaisical.
So the Free Trade Leader of the World is likely to go into some of the most meaningful discussions on that topic without having the authority to do anything about it but talk. Isn’t Democracy wonderful.
Campaign Finance Scandals
This is a politician’s worst nightmare – a bad story that won’t go away and continues to get worse. The campaign finance scandal which has haunted the Democratic Party for months has now gathered two new direct targets, the President and the Vice President. Both are now subject to preliminary investigations by the Department of Justice which can lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct a full fledged investigation of the two men’s involvement in their 1996 campaign fund raising.
The allegations which have triggered them as targets are simple ones.
They used their office phones to call to solicit funds for their campaign or party. That may be a violation of a law – enacted in the last century and designed to protect civil servants from being shaken down by their superiors – which says that Federal space cannot be used for solicitation for campaign purposes. New papers suggest that the President was asked to call and that contributions came in from people on his call sheet at the same time. The VP has been suggesting that he asked for contributions of “soft money” used for party building, not the campaign, but a new revelation shows that the DNC automatically put the first $20,000 of every contribution into the campaign fund.
This is the first time that either men has come under personal jeopardy from the campaign finance scandal. The Attorney General must make the decision to proceed or not to call for a Special Prosecutor. She is under enormous pressure from the Republicans who want to nick the President and Vice President. But she is being careful and professional – comparing the law to the facts. And that is not as easy as her critics would suggest.
There is little case law and ambiguous language in the law in question.
2000 – Just Around the Corner
I know. The presidential election was just 10 months ago. But the run for the White House has started already. Here is what the early polls say:
Vice President Al Gore still has a commanding lead in a Democratic presidential-primary preference for 2000. But he has slipped to 47% from 56% five months ago. Former Sen. Bill Bradley distant second — at 13%.
Next come Jesse Jackson, House Leader Richard Gephardt and Sen. Bob Kerrey, all in single digits.
Among Republicans, Texas Governor George W. Bush — almost certainly mistaken by some respondents for his father, the former president — is ahead with 24%, holding a 10-point lead over both Elizabeth Dole and Jack Kemp, with businessman Steve Forbes next. Former Vice President Dan Quayle is in single digits; Speaker Newt Gingrich, as well-known as anyone, and former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, who ran last time, received only 4% and 2%, respectively.
Gore leads Kemp by 42% to 38%; and Bush by 45% to 39%. Bush faces a campaign for re-election next year, but is a heavy favorite to win big.
Two weeks ago, the Republicans held the first of what will be scores of joint appearances by the prospective candidates. A ” Party Building Conference” was held in Indianapolis and all of the wannabees were there – thirteen prospective candidates by actual count. And weeks later, the Christian Coalition held its annual meeting and gave the candidates an opportunity to preach.
The early line is nothing but positive for Forbes – despite his poor poll showing. He has performed well and has exhibited his own version of charisma. He did well at Indianapolis, but he hit the ball out of the park at the Christian Coalition. In days past, Forbes took a Libertarian view of the abortion controversy – it is none of governments’ business. But at the Coalition meeting, he announced his conversion to a very strong anti-abortion stand. That is one of their key issues and he won many plaudits for his new view.
Bush is the establishment candidate – the choice of the party leadership.
That is important. The Republican establishment seldom loses it candidate
- and they stick by them when the going is tough. The Dole campaign proved that. Bush is the popular, conservative governor of Texas and son of the recent president. But he is not the campaigner his dad was (or more importantly, that his mother was.) His skills need to be improved – and that is what these early tests are for.
I have long believed Forbes would be the candidate in 2000 – and I am delighted to see that my judgment is being vetted. In a world where money counts, how can you vote against the only billionaire in the race.
Robert J. Keefe, Chairman – TKC International, Inc.
Washington, D. C. – 202 638-7032 – Fax: 202 638-6784 E-mail:
Update reports on Brazil, Canada, Japan, Spain and Venezuela – as well as this report – can be read on the Global Strategies Group web site:
Leave a Reply