|
Gephardt { October 3 2002 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35410-2002Oct2.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35410-2002Oct2.html
For Gephardt, Risks And a Crucial Role
By Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 3, 2002; Page A01
President Bush, under fire for politicizing the debate over Iraq and facing growing opposition to his plan to confront Saddam Hussein, turned to a staunch Democratic rival who may run against him in 2004: Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
In two days of frantic and sometimes contentious negotiations starting Monday morning and culminating late Tuesday night, Gephardt was persuaded to break ranks with many in his party, including the Senate's Democratic leader. He cut a surprise deal with the White House that paves the way for a bipartisan congressional endorsement of Bush's Iraq policy next week.
Since June, Gephardt has supported proposals to strike Iraq and topple Hussein, although he joined fellow Democrats on Sept. 25 in accusing Bush of politicizing national security. This week, when Bush needed a high-profile Democrat to join him in crafting a congressional resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, Gephardt stepped into the role.
His decision sapped momentum from a bipartisan campaign led by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and Sen. Richard D. Lugar (R-Ind.) to restrict Bush's options in attacking Iraq. It isolated Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) from the congressional leaders who backed the president. It blunted criticism that Bush was going it alone. And it greatly increased the likelihood that Bush will win broad, bipartisan support when the House and Senate vote on the war resolution next week.
"We had to go through this, putting politics aside, so we have a chance to get to a consensus that will lead the country in the right direction," Gephardt said in an interview yesterday.
But several Democrats privately questioned his motives -- some wondering if presidential aspirations clouded his judgment. Senate aides said Gephardt fell into a White House trap meant to divide Democrats and embarrass Daschle.
"A lot of people are upset that we watch TV and see this show of unity when we thought we were still working on an agreement," said Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-N.Y.) about his leader's appearance at a bipartisan Rose Garden event yesterday.
A Democratic lawmaker said members had accused Gephardt privately of having "sold out," and another suggested anyone running for party leader should promise not to run for president. But such comments reflect a minority view among Democrats.
Many members praised Gephardt for crafting a deal that most Democrats can support. Even Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who led a petition drive to delay the vote until after the Nov. 5 elections, said she was inclined to vote for it even though the administration has failed to convince her that Hussein poses an immediate threat.
At this pivotal moment in domestic and international diplomacy, Gephardt's motives seemed to meld with Bush's. The result was a victory of potentially lasting consequence for both men.
Bush wanted a strong, bipartisan vote of support to show world leaders that the nation is united in its resolve to take on Hussein, with or without them. Gephardt's blessing provided Bush such cover and, more important, an assurance that about two-thirds of House Democrats will back him, lawmakers said.
Gephardt, with one eye on this fall's House elections and the other on 2004, knows that the Iraq debate could reverberate in future campaigns. He was among many congressional Democrats who voted in 1991 against granting Bush's father the power to attack Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, which turned out to be a resounding military and political success.
A Bush-Gephardt alliance would blunt the Iraq question as an issue in the 2004 presidential contest if Gephardt is the nominee. At the least, it will provide vulnerable House members with a bipartisan plan they can support and point to if critics accuse them of being anti-war.
"It's clearly helped members in marginal districts and swing districts," said Rep. Martin Frost (Tex.), Democratic Caucus chairman. "It makes it clear Democrats are as concerned about Iraq as Republicans are."
Gephardt, 61, made no apology yesterday for breaking with anti-war liberals in his party, saying it would be "immoral" to calculate the political implications of his decision.
But few decisions are made these days in the Gephardt camp without factoring in his possible bid for president in 2004. His aides say it's a matter of when, not if, Gephardt announces his candidacy, even if Democrats recapture the House majority Nov. 5. Gephardt says he will decide after the elections.
A senior adviser said it's impossible to gauge whether Gephardt's outspoken support of Bush will hurt or help him in a White House bid, especially in the Democratic primary, noting that many party activists are unhappy with his position. Barbra Streisand, who helped him raise substantial donations last weekend, is one of many high-dollar, anti-war liberal donors voicing concerns about his position, the aide said. His advisers believe he will benefit from taking a strong position.
Late last week, Gephardt sent the White House a half-dozen changes he wanted in the administration-drafted resolution. Some were suggested by Reps. Ike Skelton (Mo.) and John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), leaders of a group of Democrats undecided but inclined to back Bush if he made the proposed concessions.
These included explicit support for U.N. diplomacy, a report on administration plans for a post-Saddam Iraq and limits on the scope of the war-making power. But one Gephardt demand -- for a presidential determination that attacking Iraq would not interfere with the larger war on terrorism -- almost killed the deal. When Bush called Gephardt around lunchtime Tuesday, Gephardt said the resolution must address this broader question.
"We had some real differences over whether we need to do that and how to state that," Gephardt said.
The White House suggested it was impossible to determine that attacking Iraq would not interfere with the war on terrorism, Gephardt said. He offered a compromise that would require Bush simply to find that going after Hussein was "consistent" with the war on terror. An aide called at 11 p.m. to say the White House accepted. Gephardt and Bush shook hands on the deal the next morning.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
|
|
