From: AdmrlLocke@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:36 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: GrammNet: Weyrich on VP GrammNet Issue 7/10/00 Dear Friend of Liberty, I apologize for my prolonged absence. Right now people are speculating madly about whom George Bush, Jr. might choose as his vice-presidential running mate. Liberals in the news media still push for their favorites: retired General Colin Powell, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose plan for an amphibious invasion of Iraq during the Gulf War actually would have caused the terrible level of American casualties that he predicted when he opposed the very war which made him popular; Elizabeth Dole, the former Secretary of Transportation who forced the auto makers to install those child-killing airbags; John McCain, whose plan for further government control over how you spend your money supporting your political beliefs would silence conservatives and leave the liberal media with a virtual monopoly on political information; Christine Todd Whitman, the liberal governor of New Jersey who vetoed even a ban on partial-birth abortions; and of course Tom Ridge, the Catholic but pro-choice governor of Pennsylvania. Powell has said he won't accept the nomination. McCain claims he doesn't want tit either, but I suspect I'm not alone in viewing his disclaimer with skepticism. The rest probably still pine for it, but I predict that conservative opposition has effectively vetoed all of these liberals. That doesn't mean, however, that that Bush will prevent some of the liberal media's favorites from speaking at the convention. As the second piece below, a story from the ultraliberal Associate Press, illustrates, Bush apparently plans to let at least Powell, Dole and McCain speak. Most likely we will also see speeches by a number of actual conservatives, but in typical liberal media fashion, the AP story focuses exclusively on the liberal speakers--mostly complaining, it seems, that Bush won't let them pursue their liberal agendas in their speeches. What a shame! In the first piece below, Paul Weyrich, a conservative leader for four decades, speaks about the power which conservatives can have over the choice of vice presidential running mate--and the limits to that power. Weyrich, a founder of the conservative public policy institute (think-tank) called The Heritage Foundation, which gave me my Salvatori Fellowship back in 1993, argues that conservatives can veto bad candidates for running mate, but cannot help a good candidate get the nomination. Weyrich's experience argues persuasively as to the veto power conservatives can wield. He simply asserts, by contrast, that a conservative endorsement of one candidate or another would serve as "the kiss of death" for that candidate, without explaining why. Perhaps Weyrich believes that if Bush chooses a candidate who has emerged as the clear favorite of conservatives, the liberal media would brand Bush a "captive of the right" or some such nonsense, as they did during the primaries (when they called Bush a captive of the "religious right.") While the argument might have some merit, I am merely speculating upon Weyrich's potential reasoning. Mr. Weyrich, if you're reading this and would like to reply, I'd be happy to pass along your reasoning to the GrammNet readership. I hope too, incidentally, that you'll accept my profound thanks for that Salvatori Fellowship; it not only proved exciting and informative, but launched my career as a political columnist. I rate my Salvatori Fellowship as the single most important event of my life in politics. Weyrich explains how Ronald Reagan chose George Bush the elder and in turn how that Bush chose Dan Quayle, but goes out of his way to avoid publicly suggesting any candidate for Bush the younger to consider. Conservatives apparently under serious consideration, however, include Michigan's governor, John Engler, Oklahoma's governor; Frank A. Keating, like Engler a pro-life Catholic, and a former FBI agent who got high marks for handling the Oklahoma City bombing; and in a stunning new development, Representative Chris Cox of California. Recent polls show Bush running even with Al Gore in California, so that adding Cox to his slate might well provide Bush the margin of victory in a state which until recently looked like an easy win for Gore. Cox has the virtue of appealing to both social conservatives and libertarian conservatives, many of whom have been suspicious of Bush from the start and remain so. By choosing Cox, Bush would most likely unite the GOP's base of conservatives solidly behind him, without alienating any moderates or independents, and provide a Bush administration with one of the most consistently pro-liberty voices in the federal government today. In keeping with Weyrich's thesis that we cannot choose, but can only veto, running mates, I'd like to suggest that we veto any talk of Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee. Originally I liked Thompson, a former actor, but when he conducted the Senate hearings into illegal Democratic fundraising he played right into the hands of the liberal media by equating illegal Democratic fundraising with legal Republican fundraising, helping to pave the road for further federal control of how we spend our money to support our political beliefs. Thompson has since come out openly in favor of more federal control of our campaign spending, going so far as to support the liberal candidacy of McCain. As leaders of Right to Life and the National Rifle Association know, further campaign finance controls represent the gravest threat to our remaining liberty because such controls would effectively silence all the groups on the right, leaving the liberal media to propagandize the agenda of the left with virtually no competition. We cannot let Thompson, McCain or any other campaign finance controller get near the presidency. So veto Thompson as surely as you've veto McCain--or Whitman. I'm thinking about changing the name of my publication from "GrammNet" to "LibertyNet," since it's been more than four years since Phil Gramm was running for president and since he doesn't seem likely to run again. I'd like to know what you think: shall we have a LibertyNet?! Sincerely, David B. Levenstam, CPA, MT, MA Bush/Cox in 2000 GrammNet is an independent newsletter, not affiliated with Senator Gramm. To subscribe to GrammNet, email me at AdmrlLocke@aol.com, with a message to the effect that you'd like to subscribe. GrammNet back issues available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3390/ ----------------------------------------- Paul Weyrich: Veep strategy About us Privacy statement Contact us Links Recommend this site to your friends! Home © 2000 ConservativeHQ. Click here for reprint permission.Veep strategy: The Republicans' vice presidential decision and how it can affect government for a generation by Paul Weyrich Editor's note: In this speech, Paul Weyrich, the president of the Free Congress Foundation and founding president of the Heritage Foundation, told of his involvement in the selection of three vice presidents -- and of the lessons he learned the hard way. This address was delivered at a Hot Issues Workshop sponsored by CNP Action, Inc. in San Francisco, California in March 2000. It is reprinted with the permission of Mr. Weyrich and of The Policy Counsel, the semi-annual journal of the Council for National Policy. For better or worse, I have had three opportunities to make input into the selection of the vice president over the years. I will describe them briefly and tell you what lessons I think can be drawn from them. The first occurred in 1968. I was a staffer on the Hill for a member of the Senate leadership. Jim Lucier Sr. was working at that time for Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Strom Thurmond had made a deal with Richard Nixon. In return for Strom Thurmondís support for Richard Nixon for the nomination, part of what Thurmond got from Nixon was the following agreement: That he would have a veto over the selection of the vice president, and That he would have input on the naming of the first two Supreme Court justices that Nixon would appoint. Strom Thurmondís support was absolutely critical. If Thurmond had gone for Ronald Reagan, Reagan would have been the nominee in 1968. Many delegations were ready to shift. There was a great dissatisfaction with Nixon. People do not understand how close that convention was. It was the last open convention that weíve had. All the rest of them have been orchestrated, but that one in 1968 could have gone either way. Jim Lucier came to me and said that Harry Dent, who had been on the staff of Senator Thurmond for many years, had gone to work for Richard Nixon. And that Dent was the go-between for the selection of the vice president. Lucier said Dent was coming to visit with Thurmond, at which point they were going to discuss who would be acceptable to Thurmond for the vice presidency. It was very clear that Nixon wanted to name Mark Hatfield, the Senator from Oregon, as his vice president. This was not acceptable to Senator Thurmond, who made that clear. As a result, although the Nixon people tried very, very hard to persuade Thurmond to set aside his objections, Thurmond simply said, "Hatfieldís too liberal. I donít accept him." It was clear that Nixon was looking for somebody who was sort of liberal, but who would not be anathema to conservatives. He misunderstood the feelings about Hatfield, which were the result of Hatfieldís opposition to the war in Vietnam. Nixon thought that because Hatfield was a religious person, an evangelical and so on, that he would be acceptable. Well, anyway, Lucier and I were going to meet with Dent. Lucier kindly let me in on this meeting, which was to discuss who might be acceptable. I have to confess this. I came up with the name Spiro Agnew. He was the governor of Maryland who had been very tough on the dissenters at the University of Maryland. Agnew had also said some things which indicated he was a pretty good father and parent at the time of the revolt then going on against all parental authority. I pointed out that Agnew had been elected as a liberal. The conservative in the Maryland governorís race was a guy by the name of Mahoney, who was an independent candidate. So Agnew was the liberal candidate, endorsed by the liberal media. I suggested that, maybe, he would be acceptable. Senator Thurmond was very reluctant to accept Agnew. He said, "I donít trust him. I donít. I think that his new-found conservatism is phony." We argued that no, it seemed to be out of conviction, and so on. The Senator reluctantly accepted the notion of putting Agnew down on the list of people who would be acceptable to him, and the rest is history. In the 1970s, we had formed a group of people who used to meet at Richard Viguerieís house all the time. We would strategize these things. We formed a group of people who had been part of Reaganís core supporters, with the notion of letting Reagan know who was or was not acceptable for vice president in 1980. Because the vibes coming out of the Reagan campaign, from the very word go, were that they were worried about liberal Republicans. First of all, Reagan himself had been very traumatized by the Goldwater experience, when the liberal Republicans walked out. Second, Congressman John Anderson, whom you will recall had been involved in the Republican primaries, had left the Republican Party, had gotten on the ballot and was running as an independent presidential candidate. They feared John Anderson. They thought he would get a substantial vote. In fact, polls at the time were showing that Anderson was getting upwards of 18-20 percent of the vote. The Reagan campaign was looking at this, and they said, "This is right out of our hide. This is disaster." And so on. So the word got out that they were considering Howard Baker, then the Republican minority leader in the United States Senate. At the time, Richard Viguerie was the publisher of Conservative Digest, and one John Lofton was the editor of that magazine. The cover of the June 1980 issue of Richardís magazine ran a drawing of Howard Baker in a dunce cap. And on the cover it said, "Why Howard Baker flunks the Reagan VP test, and no, itís not just the Panama Canal." That issue ran interviews with every known conservative leader, and some who werenít known, all saying why Howard Baker was unacceptable. A few of us also said Bush was unacceptable, too. But most of the people didnít say anything about Bush. This was deliberate on Loftonís part. Lofton actually liked George Bush, because he had been editor at the Republican National Committee of something called First Monday at the time that George Bush [the elder] was the Republican National Chairman. So they had this sort of friendship. Perhaps Lofton today might deny this. In any case, we conveyed this message to the Reagan people. At the convention, when the situation sort of became unglued, the Reagan people had to make a decision. They had a meeting with a group of conservatives. I had gone to the Detroit convention, but I went back home because I had been on the road for about two weeks. Back home, I got a call about this meeting. We had a terrible thunderstorm, and I got stuck circling Detroit. In fact, thatís the only time in my life Iíve ever had a police escort, because they wanted to get me to this meeting. Well, I got to the meeting just as everybody was coming out. And it turned out that at this meeting everybody said Howard Baker is unacceptable. And the Reagan people asked about Bush. They asked whether people would walk out if Bush were selected. And nobody said, "Yes, weíll walk out." They said, "We donít like Bush." But nobody said, "You select Bush, and we hold a press conference pulling the plug on you." If that had been said, Bush would not have been the nominee. It was not said. I was prepared to say it, but I was up in the plane, circling Detroit. Finally, the 1988 choice. We have an inside/outside meeting every week where we connect Members of Congress with outside groups. Congressman Ernest Istook is nice enough to help with that meeting, and is a regular attendee. That meeting has been going on for a long time. It was actually initiated by Newt Gingrich in 1983. In 1988, we got a call from a high official in the Bush campaign, asking if we would survey all the members of the coalition on one Senator Dan Quayle. And I said, "Why?" They said, "Never mind. Just survey. What do they think of Dan Quayle?" So I dutifully saw to it that Eric Licht of my staff called everybody in the coalition and asked, "What do you think of Dan Quayle? We got a virtually unanimous report back. Nobody was enthused about him. People were asking, "Why are you asking this question?" Then the Bush people asked the magic question: "Did anybody say they would walk if Dan Quayle were selected?" I reported, "No, nobody said they would walk at all." Let me tell you what I draw from those experiences. Number one, there is always a fear on the part of these candidates that, once they get the nomination, some faction or other of the party is going to revolt. That fear drives the selection of the vice presidential candidate. I saw considerable support here at this meeting for the position that I hold, that John McCain would be an unmitigated disaster as vice president. If conservatives fail to convey to the Bush people that they will not accept him on the ticket, McCain may well end up on the ticket, regardless of any personal feelings and concerns about loyalty and everything else. You have to be very up front, very public and make it clear that, "If you select so and so, weíre out of here." So much for stopping people that you donít want. Point number two is about promoting a candidate. If movement conservatives were to come out in favor of a candidate, if we were to organize something, it would be the absolute kiss of death. The running mate surfaces through somebody who is very trusted at the highest level of the campaign. In the case of Spiro Agnew, it was Strom Thurmond who made that deal. He had that trust because he had delivered all those Southern convention delegates for Nixon. Nixon had to satisfy him. Nixon, in that sense, was a man of his word. If he gave you his word on something like that, he would keep it. And he had to satisfy Thurmond, or there would have been big trouble. He knew that. So Thurmond was in a position to help bring about that selection. Practically nobody else was. Where did Dan Quayle of Indiana come from? Dan Quayle came from one of George Bushís first supporters in the country, somebody who got on Bushís bandwagon very early when he began running against Ronald Reagan. That particular individual was Governor Bob Orr of Indiana. It was Bob Orrís idea that Quayle would make a splendid vice president. He was young. He was articulate. He was full of life and everything else. This got sold to Bush by Orr, a trusted individual. Then it was vetted, and, as I told you, they found out that nobody would walk if they picked Dan Quayle. Quayle suited Bush, because nobody would leave the party as a result of his nomination. Mind you, Reed Larson [of the National Right to Work Committee] was saying, if you nominate Jack Kemp, the National Right to Work Committee will be buying caskets by the boatload. Pro-life people were saying, "If you nominate a pro-abortionist, weíll get you." And so on. Nobody was saying anything bad about Quayle. He also suited Bush because he was no competition. Thatís another reason why Jack Kemp did not get the selection: Jack Kemp would have been competition. If he had been vice president, he would have had his own constituency. They wanted somebody who would be loyal and who would have no constituency. And believe me, Dan Quayle had no constituency. So he fit the bill. Can we negatively affect who George W. Bush will select? Yes, we can. Can we positively affect who George W. Bush will select? No, in my opinion. What if we have somebody whom we think would be in Bushís interest? Now remember, we have to think of who would be in Bushís interest, not in our interest. It would be a nice coincidence if someone were in our interest and Bushís interest. But if we have somebody we think would fill the bill of what Bush is looking for, what we have to do is to go to someone or some people who have been high up in the circles that Bush listens to. We must persuade them and let them carry the message. It cannot be done in any kind of public way, because if it comes out that, say, John Engler is the choice of the conservative movement, that would be the end of him. I just picked Englerís name out of a hat because heís a Catholic, and they need a Catholic. Maybe thatís a good idea, but I just picked a name. We cannot have any name, one we think is a good idea, publicly surfaced as the conservative candidate. It is the kiss of death. What we can do is to go to somebody whom we know Bush listens to. Thatís a rarified atmosphere, believe me. Go to that person. If we can make the case to that person, maybe that person could be persuasive with the nominee. So those are the lessons that Iíve learned. I have a lot of repentance to do for my sins in connection with these activities. QUESTION: Paul, did you leave one out from 1988? I donít want to go where you donít want to go, but a certain senator from the West, Wyoming, Alan Simpson? MR. WEYRICH: Oh, well, in the negative sense. They were considering Alan Simpson. This was before we were asked to vet Quayle. Simpson was a particular favorite of George H.W. Bush. They just clicked. And word got to me that they were considering Simpson. I did a somewhat famous interview, at least Simpson considers it such. He always brings it up whenever I see him. I wonít be as uncharitable now as I was then. In any case, I made it clear that he would not be acceptable, and it torpedoed Simpsonís campaign. So it fits in with the description that we can have a negative effect. They did not want conservatives to walk out. They were very worried. Former President George Bush has always had trouble with conservatives. They did not want conservatives to walk out of that í88 convention. And anybody we said was unacceptable would be unacceptable. But it turned out we did have a role in the selection of Quayle. And by the way, I made a hundred bets at the convention in New Orleans, that Quayle would be selected. Every reporter I ran into asked, "Who do you think itís going to be? Is it going to be Dole? Is it going to be Elizabeth Dole?" And I said, "No, itís Dan Quayle." "Dan Quayle? Youíre out of your mind!" I wish I could have collected, but they are no good on their word. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I know this is such a very, very important subject here. I would only add one thing to what Paul said. Yes, Paulís right, we canít surface a name as our candidate, that would be the end of that candidate, and would hurt the ticket. But there is one thing, one message, we should get out to the Bush people, and that is that Ronald Reaganís first decision was to unite the party. So that everybody, all wings of the party, all elements, all parts of the coalition, felt they had a stake in the election. George W. needs to do the same thing. I remember 1960, when Nixon sold out one September evening to Nelson Rockefeller. We were disillusioned, and we didnít work hard for the ticket. Or in 1976, after Ford had betrayed us and selected Rockefeller as his vice president. As in 1992, 1996, 1998, if conservatives are not on board and enthusiastic for the ticket, this ticket is not going to win. Conservatives certainly got excited in the last few weeks about George W. Bush, between him and John McCain. But he does not represent our wing of the party. We are the majority wing of the party, and he has to select someone who can unite, excite and get the conservatives enthusiastically on board, which hasnít happened for some time. QUESTION: Mr. Weyrich, I am from Arizona, and I have been involved with the Arizona Republican Party for many years. I am not a McCain supporter. I do know that our governor has come out and supported Bush over McCain. My question to you is, how much feeling do you really have that the Bush people will select McCain to be the vice president? MR. WEYRICH: I think, ordinarily, they would not accept McCain, because there is bad blood generated by this campaign, things that were said that were hurtful and so on. But if his pollsters come to Bush and say, "You have two choices: You can select X, and you lose. Or you can select McCain, and you win" -- in my opinion, they will select McCain. Theyíll put aside their feelings. Theyí ll put aside reservations. If that ticket should win, McCain would probably be isolated, probably be locked in the basement of the White House or something. But they wouldnít hesitate, if they believed that that would be the critical thing for them. Hereís what we have to do, in my opinion, if we donít want McCain. And I donít. I know this man. Iíve known him since 1973. I consider him dangerous, and he is absolutely opposed to everything that the people in this room stand for. If we donít want him, weíve got to make it clear that it will cost George Bush. He may think that he can pick up these Independents, but heís going to lose the base of the Republican Party. If we make that clear, he will not be selected. QUESTION: Paul, letís not make the mistake we did in 1980, and keep our list to one person. I think we need to give serious thought to this, and expand it with some very, very serious possibilities. Bob Novak says he thinks the Bush strategy is to put Colin Powell on the ticket. For my money, I think Colin Powell should be right alongside John McCain as not acceptable. On the other hand, Congressman Istook has suggested that we come out as a movement and endorse Christie Todd Whitman, thus putting the kiss of death upon her. And I got another note from the congressman that says take another look at J.C. Watts. Anyway, weíve got to move quickly. Itís been said, in some of the pieces that Iíve read, that George Bush has a hard time putting two sentences together, and in the debates, Gore will really have a lot of fun with him. What would you think of the most articulate speaker out there, the one that has the integrity, and the support of conservatives, what do you think about Alan Keyes? MR. WEYRICH: Well, I love Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes is an extraordinary individual. It wonít fly, because Alan Keyes is much too much of an independent individual to fit in the Bush context. I know enough about the relationship between the Keyes people and the Bush people, and all of that. In my opinion, that would not fly -- unless their pollster said, "Unless you name Alan Keyes, youíll lose." I donít think theyíre going to do that. Itís a fine idea in theory. -------------------------------- campaigns - Subscribe to the Campaigns and Elections List at http://campaigns.listbot.com Dole To Speak at GOP Convention WASHINGTON (AP) - George W. Bush has offered former rival Elizabeth Dole a speaking slot at the Republican presidential convention. Her husband, 1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole, is likely to play a smaller role, party officials said Friday. The Texas governor has made most of the major decisions for the four-day gathering in Philadelphia that begins July 31, a Monday, but convention organizers hope to dribble out details to build suspense. They plan to release the convention's slogan next week and, sometime afterward, the themes for each night. Bush has already signaled that his convention will be less partisan than past presidential coronations. With a track record of drawing new female voters into politics, Mrs. Dole is tentatively scheduled to address the convention on its second night, which likely will be devoted to the theme of ``strength and security,'' GOP officials said. Her husband, the former Senate majority leader who lost to Democratic President Clinton four years ago, is not expected to get a speaking role but will likely be honored in some way, they said. Neither Dole was available for comment Friday. Mrs. Dole is a potential vice presidential candidate, though GOP consultants believe her chances are slim. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who waged a stronger campaign against Bush than Mrs. Dole, and Bush's national security adviser Condoleeza Rice are tentatively scheduled to join the second-night lineup. A tribute also is planned that Tuesday night to past GOP presidents, including Bush's father, President Ford and ailing President Reagan, whose wife, Nancy, would attend. The convention's first night is expected to feature retired Gen. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and possibly Laura Bush, the presumptive nominee's wife. A charter school will be spotlighted, part of Bush's effort to focus the convention on traditional Democratic issues such as education. Economic issues, including Social Security, are expected to be highlighted on the third night, when the roll call of states formally gives Bush enough delegates for the nomination. The vice presidential candidate will be the night's featured speaker, officials said. Bush, whose speech is scheduled for the final night, will have a presence each evening of the convention, though he may not arrive at the site until mid-week. Officials say he may appear by satellite, perhaps from campaign stops, early in the convention. In a break with tradition, the roll call may be spread out over three nights instead of one, officials said. And there may not be one speech set aside as the ``keynote'' address, they said. With only one hour of network coverage available each night, prime-time spots will be a premium. The officials said it was unclear who would get the prize positions, though McCain advisers say he has been promised one and Powell will almost certainly get the nod. The convention offers McCain his highest profile since the primaries to promote his reform agenda. He plans to travel by bus with a press corps to Philadelphia on the Saturday just before the convention begins, and conduct dozens of interviews while at the site. But he will not make trouble for Bush. One adviser said Friday that McCain won't allow his name to be put in nomination nor will his delegates seek to push his agenda in platform hearings. The Arizona senator earned more than 250 delegates, but his staff believes many of them are Bush supporters who took his slots. McCain plans to meet with about 170 delegates that he considers to be true supporters, the adviser said. McCain's speech has not been written yet. Bush's had already gone through several drafts.