ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 31, 2003

WASHINGTON -- As usual, I am presenting my list of holiday hangover cures. I do not know why. When you need this, you probably won't even be able to read it. Your eyes will be two pink dots, your teeth will itch, and your mouth will feel as if an army has marched through it.

Actually, I have no sympathy for people who awake with crushing hangovers. A hangover is God's way of telling you that you are still alive.

But I know you expect aid and comfort from me, and so I will once again share with you my collection of expert cures for this hangover season:

1. DR. PHILIP THOREK, a surgeon with an interest in nutrition and drinking:

"Boy, alcohol really knocks the hell out of your liver. And the liver is a marvelous organ. But what do we do to it? We go out and kill off a fifth and turn into bibulous slobs.

"The only real cure for a hangover is what I call the Tincture of Time. You have to wait hours and hours for your body to metabolize and destroy the alcohol. And it is not just the alcohol, but the impurities. The fusel oils! The congeners! The aldehydes!

"A hangover is a form of poisoning. There is no doubt about this. Now, eating fatty foods, bread or cheese will help absorb some of the alcohol. But this doesn't mean you can go and drink more. That's crazy. Moderation, moderation. This is what we must learn.

"A glass of wine is a good tranquilizer. But you must remember temperance. Not abstinence, but temperance. But what do we do? We go out and drink triple martinis, wake up with a terrible hangover and blame the olives!"

2. ROBERTO SURO, famous journalist: "Here is what they do in South America. One takes the rawest of fish. The fish is placed in lemon juice and raw onions. Hot sauce is added. The fish is then soaked for two days. No less. This is eaten with popcorn and beer. Yes, they have popcorn in South America.

"This cure is known as tratamiento de choque. In North America, you would know it as the 'shock treatment.'

"I also hear that among unsavory elements at some American places of higher education, a certain type of cigarette is smoked immediately upon awakening to remove all sense of pain. It is my understanding that this is not strictly legal, and therefore, I have never tried this myself. Also, I hear Valium is good.

"There is also a ritual to be followed. We do this every New Year's at my mother's. As the clock gongs midnight, a grape must be eaten upon each gong. Of course, with clocks with no gongs, this becomes difficult. In that case, just eat 12 grapes quickly.

"Then a raw egg is cracked into a glass of water. One carefully watches the shape of the egg white. From this, the future may be predicted."

3. THE GUILT CURE: Look in the mirror and read this in the voice of your spouse: "You slob. You absolute pig. Look at yourself. I can't stand the sight of you. You do this every year. I hope you'repleased with yourself. You look awful. If you ever do this again, I'm throwing you out of this house. You make me sick. You ought to be ashamed."

4. THE TRADITIONAL CURE: Chicken soup cures anything. You can drink it. You can soak your head in it. You can wash your face in it. You can take the spots out of your tie with it. You can even mix it with white wine and soda and make a chicken soup spritzer. Even if it doesn't help your hangover, it will remind you of your mother.

5. LORD BYRON'S CURE: "Let us have wine and women, mirth and laughter/Sermons and soda water the day after."

6. ANOTHER MEDICAL CURE: Drinking causes dehydration and the contraction of the blood vessels. To cure this, drink water or fruit juices and take aspirin. Unfortunately, another shot of booze might also swell the blood vessels and relive the pain. But this just starts the whole thing over again.

7. ZAY SMITH, newsman and former bartender: "People would come into the tavern in very bad shape and ask me for something to stop the pain. The only think I knew about was Worcestershire sauce on a lemon wedge.

"You just close your eyes and bite the lemon wedge. It helps if you are standing up while doing this. Actually, this is not a cure for hangovers. It is a cure for hiccups. But these guys were so drunk, they didn't know the difference.

"I'd ask them if they felt better, and they'd say: 'Huh? Where am I?'

"So I guess it works."

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 29, 2003

ABOARD THE DEAN PLANE – We are high above the frozen farmland of the Midwest when Dawn asks me what I want for breakfast the next day.

Dawn is the flight attendant on Howard Dean’s campaign plane, a 16-seat Gulfstream, which is far too luxurious for the former Vermont governor who wears the same suit day after day and admits that he lets his clothes “ferment” in his closet before putting them on.

The plane has green leather seats, wood paneling, a couch and a carpeted floor. It also has Dawn, who is unfailingly helpful, cheerful and pleasant - - in other words unlike most of the flight attendants one finds on commercial flights these days. (Where do they get these commercial flight attendants? In prison? And, if so, do they come from the guard or prisoner populations?)

“What would you like for breakfast tomorrow?” Dawn asks me again.

I am flummoxed. A chocolate doughnut and a Pepsi is what I want to ask for, but I am too embarrassed to tell this to Dawn for fear she will think less of me.

What kind of person has a doughnut and Pepsi for breakfast? I can hear my mother ask.

Me! I always shouted back.

Ha! she would say. Who are you?

Good question. Probably only one presidential candidate in history had doughnuts for his breakfast - - and for his lunch and dinner - - and that was John McCain, the last candidate who also spent virtually all his time with reporters.

He would climb on his campaign bus, walk to the back where the reporters eagerly waited and spend the next 12 hours or so with them. No candidate does this today. They spend their time in the front of the bus or the front of the plane with their staffs.

I once asked McCain why he spent all his time with reporters instead of his staffers.

“I like reporters,” he said.

(And now you know why he never became president.)

Howard Dean’s Gulfstream is too small to allow much separation between the press and him. There are no separate compartments. He sits in the first row up front, facing backwards so he can easily see all the reporters sitting just two rows away from him.

Even though there are no Secret Service agents yet to shoot us if we get too near the candidate, by unwritten law no reporter approaches Dean on his plane without asking the press secretary first, even though Dean is approximately six feet away from us and there are more reporters than staff and we could easily rush him.

Dean occasionally comes back and chats with reporters - - he even plays Oh Hell with them, a card game apparently chosen because few people besides him understand the rules - - he does hold press availabilities on the ground and he gives one-on-one interviews. So the press doesn’t really complain if he wants to sit up there on his plane and read newspapers and talk to his staff and think great thoughts.

Besides, we have Dawn. Who is waiting patiently for my breakfast order.

“I’ll have what the others are having,” I mumble to her.

“But you can have anything,” she says.

I draw a blank. I panic. I try to think of something breakfasty that will impress Dawn.

“Uh, eggs?” I say.

“Sure,” she says. “How do you want them?”

I should never have said eggs! Now I have to answer more questions. I should have said kippers or gruel.

“Uh, how can I get the eggs?” I ask. Duh. What an idiotic question. Dawn must think I am a fool.

“Well, you can have them anyway you want,” she says. “Scrambled?”

I try to redeem myself. “An omelet!” I say. “I’ll have an omelet.” Ha! That ought to impress her.

“Sure,” she says. “What kind?”

Oh, lord. What have I gotten myself into?

“Uh, with cheese,” I say. I think I saw a person eat a cheese omelet in a restaurant once and it looked very exotic.

“Fine,” Dawn says. “Anything else in the omelet?”

You can have more than one thing in an omelet? Who knew? This must be how the other half lives.

“Uh, just cheese,” I say.

“Great,” she says. “Now - - what do you want for lunch?”

Maybe next time I’ll just stick with the doughnuts.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 24, 2003

SIMON SAYS:
This flu epidemic would end a lot earlier if sick people would just stay home.

Sales clerks should never deal with people on the phone when they have a person standing in front of them.

The recent failure of the greatest aeronautical geniuses of our time to duplicate the flight of the Wright brothers proves that Kittyhawk was a hoax and that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.

Have you ever seen a rug store that wasn't going out of business?

Since hardly anyone smokes pipes anymore, where are kids supposed to get pipe cleaners to play with?

Everybody wants better cell phone coverage but nobody wants cell phone towers in their neighborhood.

Since so few people like Brussels sprouts you have to wonder why they were invented.

Things I Like No. 47: Sky writing.

I know gas fireplaces are more convenient, but does anyone really prefer them to actual fires?

It is usually a lot more interesting to read the movie review after you’ve seen the movie. (And that way the reviewer never spoils the ending.)

Half the time I ask for a Coke in a restaurant, they bring me a Diet Coke. Is that their way of saying I look fat?

Maybe I am just unlucky, but I have never found a good travel agent.

I know they made fun of it on “Seinfeld,” but is re-gifting really that bad?

Never marry a person who has a bad laugh. The laugh will outlast the marriage.

Young people today do not know how to cook.

Are we really heading for the last season of the “Sopranos”? What will we do?

People who take off their shoes in the movies should be beaten with sticks.

OK, I admit it: I have never burned a CD and don’t really know how.

So now the “new” Las Vegas has decided it’s not so family friendly after all. I could have told them that.

Does anybody really sift the flour before measuring?

I don't care if it is always breaking, I couldn't live without ice in the door.

Is this “Lord of the Rings” trilogy supposed to be based an a true story or what?

Is there anything cuter than kids dressed up for the holidays?

Candlelight is so nice you’ve got to wonder why they invented the light bulb.

Is there any worse smell than burnt microwave popcorn?

I have heard more stories about airline losing luggage in the past few months than I have heard in the past few years. (Hint to airplane designers: Forget about fully reclineable seats in First Class. Just build bigger overhead bins!)

Sarcasm is overrated. Duh.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 22, 2003

WASHINGTON - - You can’t blame John Hinckley for wanting to go home for the holidays. You can’t blame him for anything, in fact. That's the problem.

Even though Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan and three other people on March 30, 1981, the law says he cannot be blamed for that. A jury said he was not guilty by reason of insanity.

Most people can support that concept - - as long as it is in the abstract. If you are not responsible for your actions through a mental disease or defect, then surely you should not be punished for them.

In our society, we cure sick people. We treat them therapeutically, not punitively.

Unless they shoot the president of the United States, that is.

Though John Hinckley is technically not a criminal, he certainly is treated like one. Hinckley has been committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, DC since he was judged insane in 1982.

He is in St. Elizabeths for one purpose only: to be cured. When he is cured and, therefore, no longer a danger, he must be released. The law says so.

People who shoot other people and get convicted for it rarely serve as long as 21 years in prison. In fact, most murderers do not serve nearly that long. But Hinckley can be kept in St. Elizabeths forever.

Although it always raises a public outcry, over the last four years Hinckley has been allowed outside St. Elizabeths hundreds of times for brief trips while accompanied by hospital personnel. (He is also shadowed by Secret Service agents when he goes outside, who take careful note of his activities down to what kind of books he looks at in bookstores.)

Recently, a federal judge ruled that Hinckley will soon be allowed visits with his parents unsupervised by medical staff. But the judge imposed strict guidelines: His parents, both of whom are 78, must be with him at all times and all problems, even minor ones, must be reported. If there are any problems Hinckley must be returned to the hospital immediately. The judge and prosecutors must be notified of any trips two weeks in advance and a detailed itinerary must be provided.

This itinerary will also be provided to the Secret Service, which presumably will continue to follow him. (Reagan, as an ex-president, gets round-the-clock Secret Service protection.)

During his trips, Hinckley will be prohibited from talking to reporters. The trips will start out as day-trips and if these go well, he will be allowed overnight trips. The overnight trips must be to a hotel suite with his parents and he cannot leave the suite without one of his parents going with him. All these trips must be in the Washington area. The judge refused to allow Hinckley to visit his parents’ home in Williamsburg, Va.

Even with all these restrictions, the judge’s ruling has not been a popular one. The talking heads on cable talk shows have protested vehemently, as has the Reagan family. The Justice Department has not said whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling or not.

Contrary to popular belief, insanity is an extremely rare defense, used only in only about one percent of all felony murder cases. It is successful only about 25 percent of the time.

It did not work for John Wayne Gacy, who strangled 33 young men and boys and buried 26 of them beneath the floorboards of his home in suburban Chicago. And it did not work for Jeffrey Dahmer, who dismembered and partially ate 15 young men and boys in Milwaukee.

Could anyone who performed these gruesome deeds really be sane? Their juries thought so or at least the juries did not want to run the risk of ever putting either man back out on the streets (which is why most insanity defenses fail).

When Hinckley was successful with his insanity plea, it might have seemed like a good deal to him at the time. I doubt he feels that way today.

In the eyes of the law, John Hinckley is an innocent man. But that doesn't mean he is ever going to be a free man.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 17, 2003

WASHINGTON - - The party out of power always faces the same dilemma: What is good for the country is bad for it and vice versa.

The Dow breaks 10,000 and a few days later Saddam Hussein is captured. Good news, right?

Well, yes. Unless you are one of the nine Democrats running for president and you are trying to explain why George Bush should be kicked out of office.

It was Abraham Lincoln in the midst of his own unpopular war in 1864 and facing what he assumed was almost certain defeat (he was rescued by military victories) who begged voters to consider that it is “not best to swap horses in mid-stream.”

George Bush couldn’t agree more.

But Bush’s re-election - - this week he said for the first time that he was running again - - is still one election down the road. Before a Democrat earns the right to challenge Bush, he or she must win the Democratic nomination. And among Democrats, the capture of Saddam Hussein may not be that momentous or vote-changing an event.

An Annenberg Public Policy Center focus group of Democrats and independent voters conducted in Toledo, Ohio, Monday night by pollster Peter Hart showed voters were not overly enthused about Saddam’s capture, nor did they give Bush any credit for how he has conducted the occupation of Iraq.

“Where are the weapons of mass destruction?” asked Jannell Ector, 27, a teacher and independent voter. “Isn’t that why we were there…not just to track down Saddam Hussein?”

And it was the economy and jobs, not terrorism, that really concerned these voters. When Peter Hart asked who believed good times were around the corner, no one raised his hand.

Which is what Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, the candidate most closely identified with opposition to the war and anger toward Bush, is counting on.

Dean takes the position that the real danger to the United States always has come from Osama bin Laden not Saddam. Dean supported the war in Afghanistan, but said the war in Iraq has hurt rather than helped the war on terrorism.

“We would have been happy if Saddam had been captured on the first day, but it doesn’t change our position that it was the wrong war at the wrong time,” Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi told me. “The president has taken the focus off Osama bin Laden and the real terrorists who attacked this country. We believe that among other things the war in Iraq is taking our resources in the wrong direction. Had Dean been President of United States, we would have kept the focus on Osama bin Laden and, perhaps, we would have found him first.”

In a speech on Monday, Dean said, “The capture of Saddam is a good thing, which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.”

Which gave Dean’s Democratic opponents a new club with which to beat him over the head.

In a conference call with reporters following Dean’s speech, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman said, “Howard Dean said the capture of Saddam has not made America safer. That says to me: Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial. I fear the American people will wonder if they will be safer with him as president if he cannot understand that the capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer.”

Then, in words that could have been (and may yet be) uttered by President Bush, Lieberman said Tuesday: “Governor Dean has made a series of dubious judgments and irresponsible statements in this campaign that together signal he would in fact take us back to the days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend America’s security.”

Said U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt, “Let’s be clear: Howard Dean has been playing politics with foreign policy for over a year and his repositioning is just the latest Howard Dean political game. Despite issuing contradictory statements on Iraq over the last year, Gov. Dean has used this issue to constantly attack his Democratic opponents and to seek political advantage.”

And U.S. Sen. John Kerry said Dean’s statement was “proof that all the advisers in the world can’t give Howard Dean the military and foreign policy experience, leadership skills or diplomatic temperament necessary” to be president.

The Wesley Clark campaign feels the capture of Saddam gave the former general a big boost. Clark aide Chris Lehane told me, “It highlights and magnifies the fact that in the general election the question will not be whether are better off today than four years ago, but who will make us more secure four years from today. We are going to need a candidate with the military background, the national security experience and international stature to go toe to toe with George Bush. Only one person fits that profile: Wes Clark, four star general, former supreme allied commander, wounded and decorated Vietnam Vet.”

But while Dean’s opponents stress electability, Dean supporters stress inevitability, his inevitability as the Democratic nominee.

“We have heard all these attacks before,” Trippi said. “People said Dean opposed the war at the wrong time, that he couldn’t be a strong candidate, that he couldn’t raise money. When Bush stood in front of that banner that said ‘Mission Accomplished’ people asked us if our campaign had stalled. But we kept standing our ground and we will continue to stand our ground.”

“Let me be clear,” Dean said after Saddam’s capture. “My position on the war has not changed. The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost.”

And Democratic strategist Jenny Backus said, “I think in the long run the capture of Saddam could be bad for Bush. Now, he doesn’t have any reason to stay in Iraq unless he finds the weapons of mass destruction. It was easy to sell a narrative that we were there to find the bad guys. Well, we found the bad guys, so why are we still there? To stabilize the Mideast? That is a harder argument to make.”

But Stuart Rothenberg, independent analyst and editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said, “Howard Dean benefits when the war is going badly, there are casualties, and there is the sense that George Bush messed up. The worse the war, the better Dean’s message about the war. So any positive news out of Iraq undercuts and devalues somewhat Dean’s message.”

This may not matter much to Democrats, however, Rothenberg added. “I think Democrats are still angry enough overall at Bush - - the war is only part of it - - that Dean is not hurt seriously by the capture of Saddam,” he said. “Dean’s nomination is almost a sure thing. I don’t see how Dean is stopped. He has put his foot in his mouth once or twice and he has survived. He has money, message, enthusiasm and energy. He looks like the nominee.”

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 15, 2003

WASHINGTON - - The most delicious moment in the final Democratic debate of the year came at the very beginning when Ted Koppel wickedly asked the nine candidates on stage to raise their hands if they believed Howard Dean could defeat George W. Bush.

Only Dean raised his hand.

The audience rocked with laughter, Dean grinned, and the other candidates looked a little sheepish. If you missed the moment, don't worry - - the Republicans will probably run it as a campaign commercial if Dean gets the nomination.

The debate was otherwise unmemorable. Dean had made sure of that when that same morning he engineered an endorsement by the party's 2000 standard bearer, Al Gore.

The media went predictably gaga. The political media - - as opposed to normal human beings - - are obsessed with endorsements, campaign staffs, and polls. In reality, there are probably not 500 people in the nation (there may not be 50) who will vote for Howard Dean because Al Gore tells them to. But the endorsement does have symbolic importance.

It is yet another sign that there is probably no "mainstream" of the Democratic party that fears and loathes Howard Dean. To put it another way, the Gore endorsement is further evidence that Howard Dean is the mainstream of his party.

When a guy raises more money than anyone else, rises higher in the polls than anyone else, and gets establishment endorsements, he is hardly an insurgent anymore. He has arrived.

The typical insurgent scenario goes like this: a candidate on the left or right wing of his party wins an upset victory in an early primary state. (Pat Buchanan in 1996 or John McCain in 2000, for example.) Facing a party take-over by an "extremist," the mainstream rouses itself and coalesces around the establishment choice, who goes on to win the nomination. (Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000.)

And that is what the other Democrats in the hunt this year hope happens. At first they tried to portray Dean as an angry, anti-war left-winger who is out of step with the party. But guess what? Hundreds of thousands of Democrats have contributed millions to the Dean campaign and they seem to like the fact that he opposed the Iraq war early and often.

Nobody yet knows whether the capture of Saddam Hussein will change this. Logically, it shouldn’t change anything. All the Democratic candidates, even those four who voted for the Iraq war resolution, have opposed the war.

But presidential campaigns are often about things other than logic. And one big question is whether Dean’s anger still will have the same appeal. Clearly, many Democrats like Dean’s anger. It empowers them. They like the fact Dean did not cave in or crawl before the White House.

(If Dean continues to show strength, the media will grow bored with him and concentrate on his presumptive choice for vice president. The most exciting, if not the most likely, choice would be Hillary Clinton. But there is a problem: She voted for the Iraq war resolution, too.)

So if Dean is not out of step with his party, what do his Democratic opponents use against him? Electability. They now go around the country saying that Dean cannot win because Bush will paint him has an unpatriotic radical, who will not defend this country against terrorism.

They may be right. But which of them can guarantee a victory against Bush? Which of them can rally the party? Even assuming the party wants an alternative to Dean, it seems to have too many alternatives: Dick Gephardt looks good in one state, John Edwards looks good in another, Joe Lieberman is working hard over there, Wesley Clark cannot be taken lightly and John Kerry is not out of it yet.

So how does the party coalesce around one candidate? Well, it's called a presidential primary campaign and not only is it not over, it has not even begun. An Al Gore endorsement does not a victory make. (The hot rumor is that Gore only endorsed Dean now because Gore heard his rival from 2000, Bill Bradley, was about to endorse Dean.)

At least one group watched the Gore endorsement very carefully, however: White House political operatives. They began telling reporters that it was now "extremely likely" Dean would be the nominee - - and that they were delighted.

"The best thing Bush has going for him is that Dean is a weak Michael Dukakis," a key Bush official told the New York Daily News. "Dukakis won 10 states. Unless things turn very bad for Bush, I don't see Dean winning more than five."

This kind of talk helps the other Democrats in the race, of course. But you have to wonder why White House operatives want to help the Democrats pick a different nominee. Could it be they are a little more afraid of Howard Dean than they are letting on?

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 10, 2003

WASHINGTON - - Leave it to Al Gore to screw up his big day.

He wanted to make a big splash by endorsing Howard Dean. And he did. But he made almost as big a splash by stiffing Joe Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman as a presidential candidate has not been doing that well this year. But Joe Lieberman as a victim has been a triumph this week. There have been press conferences! TV interviews! Front page stories!

It seems that before the endorsement story leaked, Al Gore did not call Joe Lieberman, his former running mate, to tell him that Gore was going to endorse Dean.

Ever since, Lieberman has been going from TV network to TV network boo-hooing about this terrible snub. But he is also keeping a stiff upper lip and claiming that this awful slight has revitalized his campaign.

But why, exactly, did Gore owe Lieberman a call?

First - - and this very obvious point keeps getting overlooked - - Gore did not control the leaking of the story.

The endorsement was not supposed to be made public until Tuesday morning, which would have given Gore time to call Lieberman on Monday night. According to one account, Gore was planning to call all the other candidates at 11 p.m. Monday.

Instead, the story broke Monday afternoon, before Gore could call anybody. But is that Gore’s fault?

Second, what does Al Gore really owe Joe Lieberman?

Ever since the last presidential election, Lieberman has been attacking the central theme of the Gore/Lieberman 2000 campaign, which was “people vs. the powerful.”

Lieberman has gone on TV and said the theme was misguided because it was "not expressive of the fiscally responsible pro-growth, grow-the-middle-class campaign we were running." (During the campaign itself, Lieberman made no public complaints about the theme. It was only after he lost that he found it wanting.)

In response, Gore argued in a op-ed piece in the New York Times: "Standing up for the people, not the powerful, was the right choice in 2000. In fact it is the ground of the Democratic Party's being, our meaning and our mission."

So what does Gore owe Lieberman now? Lieberman attacks the very campaign he was part of and he still expects a sympathy call from Gore?

But wait, the Lieberman camp argues, Joe held off on his own campaign plans until Gore decided not to run, thereby setting back Lieberman’s fund-raising and campaign efforts this year.

Very true. But who asked him to? Gore didn’t.

If you want to run for president, you run for president. You don’t go around telling people that you are your own second choice.

Having said all this, now let me say that I am sure Gore couldn’t care less about the feelings of the other candidates. I am also sure that calling them was one of the last things on his mind.

Gore often doesn’t care about the feelings of others very much. Which is not to say that should the polar ice caps melt from global warming and 90 percent of humanity drown, that Gore would be indifferent. He would not be. He cares very deeply about humanity. But caring about specific human beings is an entirely different story.

His former aides can give example after example (he didn’t treat some of them very well after the election, especially considering how hard they worked for him.) But let me give you one: At the end of 2002, Gore summoned a gaggle of reporters to Los Angeles, where he was on a book tour, to give them individual interviews. Speculation was rampant that Gore would run for president again and that is why the reporters were interested in Gore.

As it turned out, however, it was all just a scam to promote his book. Gore had no intention of running. (I was offered the “second magazine exclusive” interview with Gore in Los Angeles. I turned it down.)

After the scam became apparent, I asked a former Gore aide whether Gore felt any guilt at making all those reporters schlep out to Los Angeles to do stories about a campaign that he knew was never going to take place.

The former aide laughed. “Gore doesn’t think about other people in terms of their feelings,” he said. “Not at that level.”

So does Al Gore feel bad about not calling Joe Lieberman?

Naw.

But does Joe Lieberman have a legitimate beef that he didn’t get a call?

Nope.

The old saying is true: In politics, if you want a friend, buy a dog.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 8, 2003

WASHINGTON - - If running away from problems could solve them, then Howard Dean’s Southern strategy might not be so dangerous.

Dean announced this week on Fox News Sunday that if during this presidential campaign Democrats would stick to issues like “jobs, health care and education” and not get trapped into talking about things like “guns, God, gays, abortion, and all this controversial stuff that we’re not going to come to an agreement on,” then the party would have a better chance of winning votes in the South.

(In his prepared remarks on this subject, Dean made more sense, but then Dean usually makes more sense in his prepared remarks.)

There is nothing new about Dean’s dream. It was more than two years ago that I wrote about the Democrats Southern strategy, which I called a “high-risk attempt to attract rural voters.”

"We are aggressively putting together a rural strategy," Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe told me back in June, 2001. "Democrats are aggressively going after parts of this country that traditionally have been difficult for us."

Al Gore had won the popular vote the previous year with large margins in urban areas and came within 2 percentage points of George W. Bush in the suburbs. Bush easily carried rural America, however.

And some strategists identified a “cultural gap” between liberal, urban, Democratic America and rural, small-town Republican America. "The party that emerges victorious will figure out some way to bridge that chasm," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report.

The trick, he said, was for each party to address its current weaknesses without sacrificing its strengths. In other words, the Democrats had to reach out to rural voters, he said, "without risking their strength with suburban soccer moms."

That, however, is some trick.

And candidates who now advocate a headlong rush to get “NASCAR” or “Bubba” or rural voters forget that only 28 percent of the votes cast in the last election came from rural areas, while 29 percent came from urban areas and 43 percent came from the suburbs.

In the suburbs and cities a lot of Democratic voters want to hear about protecting abortion rights and gay rights and strengthening gun control. They don’t want their presidential candidates to run away from these issues; they want their candidates to stand up and fight for these issues. (And I suspect at least some rural voters feel the same way.)

One of the most significant divides between urban and rural America does come over guns, which many rural Americans tend to view as instruments of recreation and many urbanites tend to view as ,instruments of destruction.

And guns made a big difference in 2000, especially in some key states that Al Gore lost like Tennessee and Arkansas. According to exit polls, some 48 percent of voters owned guns in 2000, up from 37 percent in 1996. (This did not necessarily mean that more people owned guns; it could mean rather that more gun owners went to the polls.)

Among those owning guns, 61 percent went for Bush. Among those not owning guns, 58 percent went for Gore. More significant, however, is what gun ownership did to other voting patterns: Overall, union households gave Gore 59 percent of their votes. But if there was a gun in that household, the vote was split 50-50 between Bush and Gore.

But the problem for the Democrats was not really one of guns, but of trust. When Bill Clinton advocated strong federal gun control laws, but told hunters he did not want to take their guns away, they believed him. When Al Gore said the same thing, they did not.

Terry McAuliffe’s solution was to get Democrats to stop talking about guns altogether, at least at a national level. "I believe we ought to move it out, let the individual communities decide their gun laws," he said.

Howard Dean believes in the same approach. He wants to duck the gun issue entirely. He wants to let the states decide their own gun controls laws. And, on Fox News, he applied this state’s rights theory to “all this controversial social stuff,” too.

It is an old dodge. If a presidential candidate wants to avoid dealing with a tough issue, he just says, “Let the states handle it.” That way he doesn’t have to take a position and risk offending anyone.

This was not the way Clinton approached tough problems, however. Clinton wanted to solve them. And one of his proudest political legacies was converting gun control from a from a left-wing to a mainstream issue.

Clinton did so by focussing on widely unpopular items like "cop-killer" bullets and assault weapons and stressing that Americans needed neither for sport or protection. The issue resonated especially well with women, who rewarded Clinton in 1992 and 1996 with their votes.

Clinton could have said, “Let the states handle it.” But that wouldn’t have solved the problem.

You can’t win over every voter on every issue. Sometimes you have to take a stand simply because it is the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to take a stand on a divisive issue in the hope that by doing the right thing, you will eventually unite people.

Howard Dean made his early reputation in this campaign by standing up and speaking out and fighting, not by ducking and weaving. He ought to remember that.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 3, 2003

NEW YORK - - Recently, I interviewed Tom Brokaw in his comfortable, but modest office at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. He is the anchor and managing editor of the NBC Nightly News, a best-selling author, and the winner of numerous awards. The first presidential election he covered was in 1968. This will be his last. He is 63 and will retire at the end of the 2004 presidential campaign. I talked to him shortly before he moderated a presidential debate in Iowa.

Me: Howard Dean doesn’t seem to be that great of a debater, yet it doesn’t seem to matter much.

Tom Brokaw: I think it's tonal more than anything else with him. Last night I was with some high rollers in New York who are political activists in the Democratic Party and they're kind of mystified by it all. And I said, you know, outside of New York there are a lot of people who are stuck in the center now and they want to be pulled into the arena and he's doing that. And these are not people running around wearing their party labels on their sleeves, these are (people who) want somebody who speaks to them. The [John] McCain phenomenon was a lot about that.

Me: McCain is one of the few people who was enhanced rather than diminished by running for president and losing.

Tom Brokaw: He has this enormous authenticity. And that's a point with Dean as well. I think of John as the personification of that for people, you know. He's a little outrageous and he's fearless about going after people even in his own party and he plays not by their rules. I think people are saying, “Politics as usual--I'm tired of it.”

Me: And McCain would do the most outrageous things at his town meetings.

Tom Brokaw: (laughing) It wasn't some kind of pre-packaged affair where you just add water.

Me: He did what nobody does: He actually attacked the people asking him questions!

Tom Brokaw: We were in New Hampshire toward the end and a guy got up and - - I mean it still boggles my mind - - a guy got up and he said, "You know, Senator, as far as I can tell the only mistake you made in your life was that you weren't in the Air Force.” And then the guy went on to ask a question on Medicare and McCain answered it and then he said, "Now, about the Air Force and the Navy. You know I wanted to go into the Air Force when I got out of the Naval Academy, but I was ineligible: my parents were married." (Laughter) I mean, who else could have done that?

Reporter: He was an unbelievable campaigner.

Tom Brokaw: And brought down the house. Not long ago I went to see [Bill] Clinton to get his take on the field and he said this Clintonian kind of thing. He said, “I believe that when you run for president, there's this pyramid. At the top of the pyramid the country has to believe that you really love what you're doing when you're out there, that you really believe in it. And the middle part of it is you have to have a big message. And the bottom part of it is you've got to be right on the positions, the key positions. But the first part is you've got to be at ease with yourself and having a good time.”

Me: Not that many of the Democrats seem to be enjoying it this time. Any surprises to you so far?

Tom Brokaw. The ascendancy of Dean is a surprise. To me, not to him! (Laughter)
I think it's a tribute to two or three things. One is that there is a large body of people who feel left out of the process and they feel he can bring them back in or that he's their ticket to get them back in in some fashion. Also, his ability to not be locked into "Washington speak" every time he opens his mouth on a subject. Even to run the risk of saying something that he has to pull back the next day. You know, it helps him.

Right. His mistakes don’t seem to matter.

Tom Brokaw: It makes him seem human. And then finally, and I think this is partly generational, you cannot overstate for younger voters the place of the Internet in their lives. It's a force. It is the force. They're on it all day long as a means of communication with one another and as a means of retrieving information. It shapes their world. And he tapped into that.

Me: It was during an on-air interview with you just before the California recall election, that Arnold Schwarzenegger promised that once he got elected he would clear up the groping accusations made against him. Well, he got elected.

Tom Brokaw: The only thing I'd like to say about it is that I took him at his word and I think that that he will have to address this in a more forthcoming fashion in the future.

Me: You’ve known him for a long time.

Tom Brokaw: Yes, years ago I lived in the same neighborhood in Venice Beach with him. And we used to end up at the same coffee shop in the morning. So, I've known him a long time. And I've known about these stories for a long time, you know. He's doing a lot of smart things in the meantime - - he's reaching out to people and they're surprised about what he's doing. One of the most ardent environmentalists I know wrote me the other day and said, “I don't believe it; he's appointed the right people.” Because he's not dumb, you know, I mean he knows why he was elected. He was elected because people were tired of business as usual.

ROGER SIMON COLUMN
DECEMBER 1, 2003

WASHINGTON - - At row after row of long tables, reporters sit behind their laptops and stare at television screens set up in front of the room.

On the screens is the current debate among the Democratic presidential candidates. There was one in Iowa last week and there will be one in New Hampshire next week.

The debaters go into a hall and perform in front of a live audience, while the reporters watch from the press room.

Why reporters fly hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles to watch a debate on TV when they could stay home and watch the same debate on TV is somewhat of a mystery. But it might have something to do with expense account dinners and amassing frequent flyer miles.

In any case, the care and feeding of the press is a full-time concern to debate organizers. In Iowa, the debate hall was 12,000 square feet. The press room was 27,000 square feet.

This had to accommodate not only the press, but the “spin alley,” which is now present at every debate.

Spin has changed. In years past, spin consisted of campaign managers or other surrogates trying to sell the notion that their candidate had won the debate.

The late Republican National Chairman, Lee Atwater, claimed to have invented the term, if not the strategy. In 1984, after Ronald Reagan had a disastrous first debate against Walter Mondale, Atwater told all the other Reagan surrogates to go out to the press room and “spin” that Reagan had won.

But spin quickly became so synonymous with “lying”, that few media outlets were willing to quote the spinners. So, today, the candidates themselves do the spinning after the debate and sometimes they get quoted. True, they also may be lying, but they are doing so while running for president, which makes it more quotable somehow.

Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist who works for state parties, interest groups and the Democratic National Committee, set up the press room in Des Moines last week and will set up the one in Durham, N.H. next week.

Backus’ biggest concern is passing the “Fournier Test,” named after Ron Fournier, the chief political writer for the Associated Press.

“My No. 1 standard for a successful filing center is can Ron Fournier file his story?” Backus said. “Can Ron Fournier get a story on the wire during the debate and seconds after it ends? Can he get to the people he needs? Can he make the phone calls that he needs? Is there a television monitor he can see?”

Backus tells her clients that whether they like the press or not, a good filing center is not a luxury but a necessity.

“You can’t underestimate the importance of taking care of the press corps at a debate,” Backus said. “One of primary audiences for candidates and the party is the press. If it takes a reporter three hours to find a filing center, three hours to get through security and an hour to find a seat and repeat it all to get coffee, then you have failed Debate 101.

“The quality of questions and the answers during the debate shape the facts of reporters’ stories. But the tone of the stories is subtlety shaped by the atmosphere in the press room. If it’s freezing cold the room and reporters can’t hear the sound, that makes a difference.”

Reporters would probably deny this. They would like to think their stories are unaffected by their treatment or working conditions (the sound in the press room at several of these debates has been horrible), but it is nice to know that somebody is worried about whether there are things like telephones or wireless connections for our laptops (both of which we pay for.)

Besides Fournier, two of Backus’ main concerns are keeping Adam Nagourney, chief political correspondent for the New York Times, and Dan Balz, chief political correspondent for the Washington Post, happy. Fortunately for her, the three are friendly and easy-going types, the opposite of some of the famous prima donnas in past press corps.

Though when streams of people kept walking too close to where Adam Nagourney was trying to listen to the debate and take notes in the Des Moines press room, Backus immediately set up stanchions and blue velvet ropes around him to keep the people farther away.

In general, I think the press is (mildly) happier with all these debates than the candidates are. For the candidates, who are limited to one-minute and 30-second replies, the debates take up a lot of their time for very little pay-off.

John Kerry, who, in October called the debates “very superficial,” now believes they have some value. “It is a great opportunity for people to get a sense of who you are and a good sense of our comparative ability,” Kerry told me. “It isn’t an unhelpful process, but we could go further. Longer answers would help, a smaller field would help. Gimme a real debate and I’m a happy guy.”

DNC Chief Terry McAuliffe thinks the candidates also have had some impact because of the debates. “Bush’s poll numbers are way down and you’ve got to give some credit to these debates,” McAuliffe said. “The public has seen our candidates and it is making a difference.”

Debate formats probably will change next year. (ABC wants to solve the problem of the too-crowded field by having smaller, rotating groups of candidates debate each other.) But longer answers probably will not happen.

“A minute on television is a lifetime,” one Democratic official told me. “You know what the candidates really want? They each don’t want the other eight on stage. They each want reporters asking nothing but softball questions. And they each want to get to respond for as long as they want. Well, that is not going to happen. This has to be about television. Because if it isn’t, what good does it do for people to be clicking off?”