ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 28, 2003

WASHINGTON - - Most workers have a fantasy about stringing up their bosses, but over at the U.S. Postal Service they actually did it.

At one of those “motivational” conferences where people do really stupid things and pretend they have vast significance, postal workers hoisted their boss, Karla W. Corcoran, the Postal Service’s inspector general, “on a web of ropes.”

That’s the good news. The bad news is that they let her back down again.

Corcoran, who is supposed to be saving the postal service money by rooting out waste and corruption, sponsored the conference at a reported cost of $553,257.

According to the Washington Post, postal employees gathered at a Washington hotel and took part in activities that included “making tents out of newspapers, donning cat masks and hoisting Corcoran on a web of ropes.”

According to ABC News, other activities by postal employees included the building of sand castles and gingerbread houses. “On other occasions they dressed up as the Village People or wore cat costumes,” according to the network.

Corcoran says the conference didn’t really cost all that much money and, in fact, she spent only $775 per employee.

Which is one of the problems with the Postal Service, which last I looked was $12 billion in debt.

When you begin viewing spending $775 per employee to make gingerbread houses, don cat costumes and hoist people on ropes as “only” then you could be in real trouble.

Which is what some members of Congress are now saying.

Calling for Corcoran to be fired, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., said, “When people buy postage stamps they expect that money to be used to move the mail, not to be wasted on [exercises] that have employees dressed in animal costumes.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., joined Dorgan in a letter that said, “Corcoran seems to have been too busy wasting her own agency's resources to have been much of a watchdog for the Postal Service."

The two senators said that although Corcoran’s budget was $117 million in 2001, she uncovered only $56 million in waste that year.

Which is a little unfair. After all, the “feel good” vibes that her employees got from making dressing up like the Village People must be worth at least $61 million, which would bring Corcoran to the break-even point.

Corcoran denies any wrong-doing, says her critics have their facts wrong and says she will not resign, though she will not seek another term when her seven-year appointment expires in January of next year.

"We've done a lot of things very, very differently," said Corcoran, showing a certain flair for understatement.

Corcoran’s real problem - - aside from how she looks dressed up like a cat - - may be that she has gotten on the wrong side of Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee.

Grassley, who is investigating Corcoran, said he is following up on "troubling disclosures" about Corcoran’s management. If the inspector general’s office is "inappropriately run, I worry about its ability to find waste at the Postal Service and to help that organization run efficiently," Grassley said.

The real problem may be a clash of cultures, however.

Some people believe that when you pay an inspector general $142,500 a year to root out waste and corruption, the inspector general will spend her time rooting out waste and corruption.

But Corcoran has a "values-oriented" managerial approach, which is symbolized by the acronym “TLC3,” and stands for "teamwork, leadership, creativity, communication and conceptualization." That is what all the gingerbread houses, cat masks, and Village People stuff were about.

"One of the things we had to do was a puzzle where you had to take the 'TLC3' rocket to the 'Values Galaxy,” one former employee said. “People were frustrated. They couldn't get their work done."

Said Corcoran: "I truly believe government needs more people like me. They need people who are willing to try things differently."

A Grassley aide said, "We don't mind different. We just mind different in the sense that it detracts from what you are supposed to be doing."

As I said, a clash of cultures.

But before you judge Corcoran too harshly, walk a mile in her shoes. (Even though her shoes may have been hoisted to the ceiling.)

After all, maybe you would do your job a lot better if you were dressed as a member of the Village People.

And instead of pointing fingers of blame, why don’t we all try it for a week?

Dibs on the Indian chief.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 26, 2003

WASHINGTON - - I recently received a letter from the President of the United States. This is not an everyday occurrence for me and I tried to remember the last time George W. Bush wrote.

Finally, the answer came to me: Never.

His father, George H.W. Bush, once wrote me a nice note, but he came from a different generation, a more genteel, polite generation, a generation that felt an obligation, if not an actual joy, in writing thank-you, bread-and-butter, and friendship notes.

But the son? When do I hear from the son?

When he needs money.

Yes, it is true. President Bush wrote me a letter asking for money.

It came on letterhead that said “President George W. Bush” and it carried his signature at the bottom.

In the letter, President Bush says wants me to give him $1,000, or, at the very least $750, so he can run for reelection.

My first thought upon getting this letter was an uncharitable one: Why doesn’t he write to his parents, if he needs money so bad? They have more than I do.

But President Bush needs so much money to get reelected that he has to ask, well, everybody.

And if we don’t give it to him, we could lose the war on terrorism.

That is what he implies. Only he calls it the War on Terrorism.

His primary duty, he says in his letter, is to focus on “the nation’s business” and he cannot do that if he has to grub for money like a…well, like a Democrat.

“I need the help of friends now,” the president writes me. “My responsibilities as President will require me to focus primarily on our nation's business for most of the next year. I'll depend on friends and supporters like you to get my campaign organized and operating across our country.

”Abroad, we have a duty to protect America by working for peace, opportunity and stability. We have no more urgent and important duty than to wage and win the War on Terrorism.”

And by sending President Bush $1,000 (or at least $750) right now, he can get back to winning the War on Terrorism, finding Saddam Hussein, finding Osama bin Laden, finding those weapons of mass destruction, rebuilding Iraq, rebuilding Afghanistan, and then wiping out the evil governments in Iran, Syria, North Korea and France.

And I can play my part. We all can. Simply by writing a check.

Which I was about to sit down and do. But then I wavered.

Wasn’t this merely a request for a campaign contribution, dressed up to look like a patriotic act?

And haven’t I written that most campaign contributions are wasted? That they go for idiotic campaign commercials that nobody watches and inflated salaries for cynical political hired guns?

And I didn’t I read that President Bush has sent the very letter he sent me to one million people? And if every one of them sent him $1,000 (because why wouldn’t they, if they wanted to win the War on Terrorism?) wouldn’t he have a cool $1 billion?

Which would be more than enough money, considering Bush is also holding a series of $2,000 per plate fundraisers, just two of which in San Francisco and Los Angeles on June 27 are expected to raise $6 million?

And then you have to consider his elite fundraising branches: His “pioneers” who will raise at least $100,000 each for him, and his new “rangers” who will raise $200,000 each for him.

Excuse me. Not “for him.” For America’s ability to “wage and win the War on Terrorism.”

Bush will raise so much that the Democrats will not even get close to him. Not that President Bush is letting down his guard.

“It will be months before Democrats settle on a candidate,” he writes me, “but the election could be close….I need the help of friends now.”

The election could be close? I suppose he might be right.

Like if the Democrats resurrect Franklin Roosevelt, for instance.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 21, 2003

WASHINGTON - - The road to the White House is paved with potholes and it is the rare candidate who does not occasionally sprain an ankle or two while skipping between them.

Take Dennis Kucinich, who is in the top tier of the Democratic bottom tier (i.e. he gets a steady paycheck, but few people can tell you why.)

Kucinich is running for president because he wants to cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement, end health-care for profit in this country, rebuild our cities, and repeal the Patriot Act in order “to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools.”

But he gets to Iowa and he find out that all politics is not just local, but four-legged.

I read the following exchange a few days ago on The Hotline, the National Journal’s indispensable daily briefing on politics. Kucinich is being interviewed by one of the best political columnists in America, David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register and Jeneane Beck, the Des Moines Bureau Chief for KUNI Public Radio.

Yepsen: “Congressman, according to your web site, you're a vegetarian.”

Kucinich: “Right.”

Yepsen: “Why should people in Iowa support a president who is anti-meat?”

Kucinich: “Corn is a vegetable.”

Beck: “We often use that corn to feed our livestock.”

Kucinich: “And I would say that -- well, I eat corn and soy is something that is in my diet. And what I want to make sure is that people get a good price. I don't want to see us going back to the days of the 8-cent hog.”

Let me interrupt. First, I did some research and it turns out that Kucinich is more than a vegetarian. He is a vegan. According to the Vegan Action web site: “A vegan (pronounced VEE-gun) is someone who avoids using or consuming animal products. While vegetarians avoid flesh foods, vegans also avoid dairy and eggs, as well as fur, leather, wool, down, and cosmetics or chemical products tested on animals.”

Second, I had no idea there was ever a day when you could get a hog in this country for eight cents. Heck, just finding parking for it would cost you more than eight cents. If I could get an entire hog for eight cents, I would buy 10 or 12 and keep them around as conversation pieces.

Anyway, here is how the Kucinich interview continued:

Yepsen: “So how is a vegetarian president going to be an advocate, going to be an advocate for the Iowa hog farmer or beef producer?”

Kucinich: “Because, you know, I don't have any problem with people who eat meat. I have a problem with monopolies that are stopping farmers from getting a fair price for their crops or for their livestock. So as president, my job isn't going to be to tell anyone how to eat; it's going to be to make sure that farmers get a good price.”

Which is a pretty good answer. But it occurred to me that other candidates might have some trouble with the Iowa reverence for things fleshy.

And I can imagine the following interview:

Reporter: “We are here today with Joe Lieberman. Sen. Lieberman, there is an ugly rumor going around that you do not eat pork and I am giving you a chance to deny it.”

Lieberman: “I do not eat pork. But as Connecticut’s Attorney General, I went after deadbeat dads and fought corporate polluters. As a U.S. Senator, I’ve worked to build a strong defense, improve our public schools, promote and protect our common values, and grow jobs and expand opportunities.”

Reporter: “But why should people in Iowa support a president who is anti-swine?”

Lieberman: “In this campaign, I will talk about the tough fights ahead: Strengthening homeland security while protecting Social Security. Making affordable health care available to every American. Restoring fiscal responsibility and expanding opportunity, with sensible tax cuts and sound investments that will bring back the prosperity of the Clinton-Gore era.”

Reporter: “You don’t eat any pork? Not pork chops, pork loin, pork roast, pork pie, pork burgers or pork stir fry?”

Lieberman: “No.”

Reporter: “Are you unaware that it’s the other white meat?”

Lieberman: “I have heard that.”

Reporter: “Well, as long as you eat bacon.”

Lieberman: “I do not eat bacon.”

Reporter: “Shut UP!”

Lieberman: “No, really, I have never eaten bacon.”

Reporter: “Not even on a cheeseburger? On a cheeseburger it’s not really like bacon. It’s more like a garnish.”

Lieberman: “No, not even as a garnish.”

Reporter: “Shut UP!”

Lieberman: “Could I say one thing? As we continue the critical work of rooting out our terrorist enemies militarily, we must launch a long-term geopolitical and ideological initiative - - akin to the great campaign that won the Cold War - - to combat the despotism, poverty and isolation that terrorists exploit.”

Reporter: “Up next, why did John Edwards once pass up chitlins in favor of okra? Stay tuned!”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 19, 2003

WASHINGTON - - The Democrats have got to stop meeting like this.

Everybody wants a piece of them. Every time they think they are finished with one forum or debate or town hall meeting, somebody wants to pull them back in.

That’s how some of them feel anyway. Even though there have been only two events at which all nine Democratic presidential candidates have shared a stage so far, many interest groups and organizations are now insisting that the candidates appear before them.

The nine are pretty much the stars of the party (what with the Clintons busy planning for 2008) and every group wants to demonstrate that it has the clout to get them.

Thus there are invitations (read: demands) from Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the League of Conservation Voters, the Congressional Black Caucus (which wants a mere four debates), the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, and the list goes on and on.

Last Saturday seven of the nine candidates came to Des Moines at the behest of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME.) It was billed as a Presidential Town Hall Meeting, which virtually guaranteed that it would be long and dull.

In that respect it did not disappoint. As I have said before, town halls in which ordinary voters do the questioning have their place, but they also have their limits.

One limit is that you rarely get provocative questions. After nearly three hours of predictable queries (How will you give us better health care? How are you going to help the states? Are you for or against tax cuts for the evil, undeserving rich?) it finally groaned to an end and a few of the candidates came out to talk to reporters.

And in about two seconds, Ron Brownstein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, demonstrated why it is a good idea to have reporters ask the questions every now and then.

Giving credit to Gary Hart, who once asked the question of Walter Mondale, Brownstein asked Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina to name one position on which he disagreed with organized labor.

Edwards responded that he favored reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy by 10 percent.

It was a position Edwards had taken before, but it would have been very interesting if every candidate had been asked that question in front of the AFSCME members.

(Back in February, 1984 on a nationally televised debate from Des Moines nine days before the Iowa precinct caucuses, Mondale gave a much more slippery answer to Hart: Mondale replied that the AFL-CIO "came to me in support of my proposals. It was not a deal…. They want a candidate they can trust, not one they can run." Reubin Askew, former governor of Florida, then pointed out that Mondale never answered Hart’s question and the audience applauded.)

In any case, the candidates care less about format than they do about frequency. All these forum, town hall and debate requests are eating into the time they have for other forms of campaigning and, more importantly, the time they have for raising money.

Joe Lieberman, who had to skip the AFSCME town hall because it was on the Jewish sabbath, came up with the suggestion that the candidates have one debate per month.

"If we all agree that the Democratic primary should be one of ideas, let's all agree to appear regularly before the voters on television in media-sponsored, neutral debates that have the potential of reaching the widest possible audience," Craig T. Smith, Lieberman’s campaign director, said in a letter to the other candidates.

The idea offers a little something for everyone: For the top-tier candidates it offers a way of avoiding dozens of time-consuming forums. For the lower tier it offers national TV exposure. (And for Lieberman it offers debates that presumably will not be scheduled on Saturdays.)

For the press it offers one big deal event per month, a debate rather than the more placid forums, and one in which reporters will probably be doing the questioning.

The nine campaigns met at Democratic National Committee headquarters Monday evening to discuss the proposal and, according to a knowledgeable source, basically agreed to debate once a month, details to follow. (The campaigns would be free to do more than one joint event a month, but don’t bet on all nine of them actually doing so.)

Democratic Chairman Terence McAuliffe will now sift through all the requests, talk to TV networks to try to get maximum broadcast coverage, and then try to put the events together.

If this all seems a little clumsy, keep in mind that dealing with nine campaigns is not easy and that the Democrats don’t have aircraft carriers to land on: They have to arrange what they can.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 14, 2003

WASHINGTON - - Sitting around the conference table are 14 colonels and lieutenant colonels from the elite U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pa.

The purpose of the college in the words of its founder, Elihu Root, is: “Not to promote war, but to preserve peace by intelligent and adequate preparation to repel aggression...to study and confer on the great problems of national defense, of military science, and of responsible command.”

But what I want the officers to do, at least for a few minutes, is tell me how they feel about George Bush landing on that aircraft carrier and/or the people who have criticized him for it.

Though the landing took place on May 1, it is still being written about. In other words, the event not only had wings, but legs.

There have been news articles, editorials, analyses, columns, political cartoons, and discussions on cable TV accompanied by endless replays of the moment: Bush in his “Top Gun” flight suit, helmet under his arm, striding across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, a ship named not just for a Republican president, but the founder of the Republican party.

(I think that was a coincidence, but there are those who believe Karl Rove, Bush’s political guru, is a master of creating coincidences.)

The officers are making their annual visit to the magazine I work for - - we usually talk about the media and the military - - and in this discussion, I want to get past the easy stuff like whether Bush had a “right” to use a military aircraft. So I tell a story about Lyndon Johnson.

It has various versions. Sometimes it takes place at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, sometimes at Camp Pendleton outside San Diego, and sometimes in Vietnam.

But no matter where it supposedly took place (if it took place at all), the point is always the same.

President Johnson is on the tarmac and an officer approaches him to say, “Mr. President, your helicopter is over here.”

“Son,” LBJ says, “they’re all my helicopters.”

And all those jets are George Bush’s jets, because he is the commander in chief.

I am not suggesting the president can do whatever he wants with them - - buzzing Tom Daschle’s house probably would not be a good idea - - but using one for a photo op is well within parameters established by other presidents of both parties.

And, as one colonel sitting around the table points out to me, the military routinely takes all sorts of VIPs, including corporate CEO’s, out on carrier landings because “it is good PR.”

And Bush’s landing was good PR. Photo ops used to be backdrops for a message. President Reagan would want to talk about the environment (yes, he sometimes did want to talk about the environment) so he went out to some cliffs overlooking the Pacific where waves blissfully crashed against the rocks and delivered his speech.

As the decades passed, however, the photo op became the message.

President Bush’s landing on that carrier was about one thing: the picture of President Bush landing on the carrier and the feelings it conveyed: strength, confidence, courage, compassion.

Can anyone remember a single line Bush spoke on the carrier? (He did give an entire speech.) I doubt it. But almost everybody can describe the picture and how he or she felt about it.

“He got the story out,” one colonel said, using phraseology that would make a political advance man weep with joy. “That was the purpose. And the Democrats played into his hands by complaining about it. It just guaranteed that the picture would be used over and over.”

Another officer said, “If JFK could have gone out to a carrier on a PT boat, he would have done it.”

“There is no doubt it was a photo op,” another said. “But the Democrats had to scab-pick it. That’s where they went wrong.”

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic party, issued a release eight days after the carrier landing saying, “Considering the expense to the American taxpayer and the use of American military men and women as ‘extras’ for this media stunt, the President should pledge that his landing not appear in any presidential campaign commercials and videos.”

But, as I tell the war college group, I doubt the Bush campaign will ever use that video. (A much more powerful video would be the one of U.S. forces toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. That says everything the Bush campaign would want to say.)

Let me pose this possibility, however, I tell the group. If Bush does run the carrier landing as a political ad, this is what the Democrats might say in response, especially if John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam vet, were to be their nominee:

“If George Bush wanted to do carrier landings, he could have done so off the coast of Vietnam in the 60’s, just as John McCain did. Instead, 12 days before Bush’s student deferment ran out in 1968 and at a time when Americans were dying in Vietnam at a rate of 350 per week, Bush volunteered for the Texas Air National Guard and did his flying in Houston.”

There was a certain silence around the table, but it did not last long.

“The Republicans could just point out Bill Clinton didn’t serve either,” one officer said.

“I was never more proud of my president,” said another. “You had to have huge cojones to come in on that jet.”

Which might be just what the 2004 campaign gets down to: Whose are bigger.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 12, 2003

Simon Says:

The New Republic’s Michelle Cottle gives Sen. John Edwards a “D” in the “General Likeability” category for skipping out early at Rep. Jim Clyburn’s fish fry in Columbia, S.C., on May 2, thereby insulting the crowd, the host and the other Democratic candidates for president.
As usual, Cottle gets to the very heart of what has become The Snub-Too-Boneheaded-to-Die: “Now Edward’s absence might not have qualified as a major faux pas were it not for the fact that, when questioned about it, his campaign huffed that it ‘diminishes’ their guy to be seen on the same stage with the other contenders. I'm sorry, diminishes? Just how uppity can a first-term senator with zero name recognition and an anemic political resume get? In terms of political and policy experience, young Johnny isn't fit to shine the wingtips of Mssrs. Gephardt or Kerry. (Not to mention he needs to win South Carolina worse than anyone and would do well not to publicly dis' the influential Clyburn.) If Edwards isn't careful and develops a reputation as too self-important to play nice with the other boys and girls, he risks blowing his friendly, regular-guy image. Then what does he bring to the table?”

And is it true that the next time Edwards is forced to stand next to another presidential candidate on stage, he intends to wear an “I’m Not With Stupid” T-shirt?

It’s just a guess, but based on a decade or two (or even three) in journalism, I think at least a few of Jayson Blair’s fellow reporters at The New York Times knew he was faking stories. Reporters almost always know when other reporters are faking. So why didn’t they turn him in? The unwritten Law of the Newsroom is that reporters don’t rat on other reporters.

I thought George Bush looked great landing on that carrier. Prediction: He parachutes into the Republican Convention next year from the belly of a B-52.

The Democrats have to do just three things to win the next election. But nobody knows what they are.

Why are cars still rated by horsepower? When is the last time horses powered anything in this country?

Paperback picks of the month: Ian McEwan’s “Atonement” and Kazuo Ishiguro’s “When We Were Orphans.”

On TV, hospital rooms are always private, spacious, peaceful and gorgeous. Anybody been in a real hospital room lately?

You can tell a lot about a person by whether he is willing to sit at the counter or whether he insists on waiting for a booth.

Isn’t it about time everybody stopped saying “my bad?”

Few things taste as good as birthday cake.

Except at the car wash, when is the last time you put your car in neutral?

I didn’t think Woody Allen could make an unwatchable movie until I caught “Hollywood Ending” on cable. Yikes, what a stinker.

Now that we are back down to Condition Yellow, does that mean I can stop sleeping in lead underwear?

Airlines always talk about not putting “wheelies” in the overhead bins. When is the last time you saw anybody with a wheelie? Rolling suitcases have pretty much put them out of business.

And thanks to the reader who e-mailed this observation: How come the restrooms in need of most repair are in home improvement stores?

Who would have thought that bowling would become fashionable again. (Well, almost fashionable.)

Admit it, your biggest fear is not of snakes, or of flying or of being buried alive. It is of being dropped by your auto insurance company.

There is no excuse for Geraldo Rivera.

Rumors that Donald Rumsfeld intends to grow a soul patch appear to be groundless.

Does anybody feel safer now that some pilots are carrying guns? And at the end of one year, I hope somebody compares the number of accidental discharges vs. hijackings prevented.

I don’t know anybody who thinks semi-precious stones are really semi-precious.

Does anybody still make jukeboxes? And why are they called that? What’s a juke? And why does it need to be kept in a box?

“Six Feet Under” has lost its way.

Did you know that some palm readers believe that if your ring finger is longer than your index finger, you are very creative? Test it out: Grab a creative person and take a look.

I don’t think I have ever read a more devastating profile than the one The New York Times did in its Sunday magazine on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Don’t ever allow yourself to be intimidated by anyone in an art gallery. If they are snooty to you, just look around and say: “Don’t you have anything less formulaic?” (Then run like hell.)

Do you think Thomas Edison would be shocked at how romantic we now find candlelight?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 7, 2003

WASHINGTON - - Small thoughts from a large campaign:

MAYBE HE HAD TO FEED THE METER. If the “real” presidential campaign began last week with George Bush landing on that carrier and the Democrats debating in South Carolina, then the first Bonehead Move of the Campaign Thus Far Award goes to John Edwards for refusing to take the stage with the other candidates at U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn’s fish fry in Columbia.

Nearly a thousand people gathered in a parking garage (you really had to be there) to eat deep-fried whiting (which I always thought was a town in Indiana, but turns out to be a fish) on white bread with mustard and hot sauce as the deejay spun the Charleston Shuffle and the crowd got down.

It was one of those all-too-rare, feel-good evenings in politics. The other presidential candidates in attendance worked the crowd and then took the stage with Clyburn to say a few words to the voters. But Edwards - - the only candidate who HAS to win South Carolina - - ducked out. And Clyburn was left to call plaintively from the stage: "Sen. John Edwards? Sen. John Edwards? We need you here. We need you here."

An Edwards’ spokesperson said the next day that it “diminishes” Edwards to be on the same stage with the other candidates.

Well, excuuuuuse me, but Edwards must diminish pretty easily in that case.

And in the weeks before next year’s South Carolina primary, will Jim Clyburn still be saying “We need you here” to John Edwards? Or will Clyburn have other fish to fry?

AND IF YOU NEVER CHANGE YOUR UNDERWEAR, YOU CAN FIT EVERYTHING IN A BEN & JERRY’S CARTON. I ran into Howard Dean at Dulles Airport on his way down to South Carolina and noticed he was wearing a very conservative gray pinstripe suit, blue pinstripe shirt and blue foulard tie.

“What are you going to wear to the fish fry?” I asked him.

“This,” he said. “I only have this suit with me. You never have to carry a suitbag if you wear only one suit.”

IT’S NOT WHAT I SAY THAT COUNTS, IT’S WHAT I MEAN: “I’m a former senator, a former Democrat,” Carol Moseley Braun said at the fish fry. “And I come from a long line of voodoo ladies.”

(She does have a great line in her stump speech: “My mother always said that it doesn’t matter if your ancestors came over on the Mayflower, on slave ships or across the Rio Grande - - we’re all in the same boat now!”)

And then there was Dick Harpootlian, in his farewell speech as chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, saying that when he was running for statewide office years ago, “I went into bedrooms - - wait a minute, that was when I was with Clinton in New Hampshire - - I really went into living rooms.”

I COULD HAVE BECOME A POLITICAL CONSULTANT, BUT THE MONEY WAS TOO GOOD: The first presidential candidate who endorses a tough federal anti-spam law could surge to the head of the pack. The death penalty for the second offense would get my vote.

CAN YOU SAY “AVUNCULAR?” They’re decent, they’re kindly, they’re friendly, they’re sweet. They are the old cardigan sweater with the leather arm patches and the frosty glass of lemonade on the front porch. They are Floyd the Barber from “The Andy Griffith Show.” They are Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham.

But at a press conference in Miami Lakes, Florida this week, Graham served notice that it was time for an image change.

“I’ve been elected five times in a politically complex state,” he said. “I haven’t done that by totally being a nice guy. There is nothing wrong with being civil, but it does not completely characterize me.”

His new campaign slogan: “Vote for Bob Graham - - He’s Not As Nice As You Think.”

Note to Katie Couric: That was a joke. A joke!

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
MAY 5, 2003

WASHINGTON - - "Some people give off lightning," Matt Lieberman, Joe's son, likes to say. "Some give off a warm, steady glow."

And if warm and steady win the race, Joe Lieberman certainly has a chance for the Democratic presidential nomination

But some believe Lieberman, the junior senator from Connecticut, needs a bit more: Perhaps an actual spark or two, like the ones he showed at the ABC debate in Columbia, S.C. on Saturday. It was there Lieberman gave his best public performance to date and got some good stories.

And good stories is something he has been lacking.

At the beginning of his flirtation with the presidency, there was every reason to believe Lieberman would be doing better than he currently is, at least with the chattering class that dominates political discussion this early in the campaign season.

The Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, Lieberman is the only candidate in the crowded field of nine who has run on a national ticket. In that campaign, he got largely good reviews and showed himself to be a prodigious fundraiser. And untainted by personal or professional scandal, he seemed well-positioned for a presidential race.

But he has caught few breaks: Lieberman had to wait for months until the Hamlet of Carthage, Al Gore, decided he would not run again, Lieberman's fundraising has impressed few and Lieberman's religion - - he is the first Orthodox Jew to run for president - - which so captivated the media last time around, this time is being viewed in a more critical light.

"Lieberman Has Yet To Electrify Key Backers," headlined the Hartford Courant, which described Lieberman's first quarter 2003 fundraising total of $3 million as "dismal" and said "there is clearly some dissatisfaction with Lieberman in the Jewish community."

"He's got three problems," says David Lightman, the Courant's Washington bureau chief and long-time Lieberman watcher. "The Jewish community tends to be very liberal and Lieberman has taken moderate positions Jews are annoyed with such as support for school vouchers. Second, a lot of analysts have told me that while the Jewish community is proud he ran for vice-president, the glow is over and a lot of other candidates in the race have close ties to the Jewish community. Third, a lot of older Jews worry that the presence of a prominent Jew helps stoke anti-Semitism in this country."

While Lieberman insists he has never personally experienced anti-Semitism either while growing up or on the campaign trail, one of the more unappetizing phenomenons of his last race was that in some areas of northern Florida there were a number of Gore/Cheney write-ins, generally thought to be a rejection of Lieberman because of his religion.

There is also dramatic evidence that somebody does not currently like him: Lieberman is the only Democratic candidate who is accompanied by security wherever he goes in public. Even on cross-country campaign trips, Capitol Hill Police officers accompany him because of threats on his life and one stood only a few feet away from him while Lieberman met with reporters in the "spin room" following the ABC debate.

The good news for him, at least politically, is that Lieberman continues to lead in national polling among Democrats. A Gallup poll released last week shows Lieberman leading second-place John Kerry of Massachusetts by six percentage points and third-place Dick Gephardt of Missouri by eight. A just-released Washington Post/ABC News polls also shows Lieberman in first place.

These polls get little publicity, however, for two reasons: Few in the media believe it reflects anything but name recognition and few see where Lieberman is going to win in the critical first contests.

Many buy into the "Good Neighbors" theory in which those who win come from bordering states: Gephardt wins Iowa, Kerry wins New Hampshire and John Edwards of North Carolina wins South Carolina. But Lieberman's campaign sees advantages to such thinking.

Campaign director Craig T. Smith describes those first three contests as "near death" experiences for the favorites: If any fails to meet expectations, he may be declared DOA.

Lieberman has no such expectations to meet. And joining the South Carolina primary on Feb. 3 are two states - - Oklahoma and Arizona - - where Lieberman is campaigning hard.

"On February 3, we have to win someplace," Smith told me. "We have to win a couple of those states."

Smith says Lieberman will do it not with flash and pizzazz, but by virtue of his "integrity, his knowing where he wants to lead the country and his sense of mission."

Others, however, see a rocky road ahead. "The fact that his people point to Arizona and Oklahoma reflects a paucity of opportunities for him," says independent analyst Stuart Rothenberg. "Plus everybody still wonders how Lieberman's long-term (moderate) record sells in a party where organized teachers, organized labor and liberals in general are so significant."

Michael Feldman, formerly a senior adviser to Al Gore and now with the Glover Park Group, a communications consulting firm, says Lieberman actually starts the race with an advantage.

"He is a senior U.S. senator with impeccable credentials on issues that matter both domestically and internationally," he says. "That gets him over the 'Is he capable of the job?' question with the public. Lieberman comes to the table with that. Some candidates in this race are new faces still trying to get over that hurdle."

The media can also turn around quickly. Gephardt, whose chances were being questioned just a few months ago, is experiencing a mini-renaissance in the press, getting considerable praise for a bold health care plan and new-found passion in his speeches.

And while boldness and passion were not often evident in the early stages of the Lieberman campaign, this could be changing.

"This is the right moment; I am the leader America needs now," Lieberman told me.

"Of all the Democratic candidates, I am the only one who can stand toe to toe with George W. Bush on his perceived strengths - - defense and moral values - - and I can defeat him where he is weak: on the economy and his divisive right-wing social agenda. This is the story I will tell the American people."

Whether the American people are listening this early is an open question, but when you're a "steady glow" candidate, you need all the time you can get.