==================================================================
Published by INEWS. Freely distributable if unaltered and complete. 
See end of document for info on free E-mail trial of INEWS.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS E-WIRE SERVICE All rights reserved. For 
information on receiving a free trial subscription to INEWS 
World News Daily via E-mail send E-mail to INEWS@AOL.COM
==================================================================

DISTRIBUTE FREELY

                        '96 ELECTION SNAPSHOT
                               VOL.1 #6


SUBSCRIPTION INFO/GENERAL INFO - INEWS@AOL.COM
TO REACH EDITOR ---------------- INEWSEDIT@AOL.COM


CONTENTS:
   SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY
   REPUBLICAN RACE AFTER SOUTH CAROLINA
   CAMPAIGN '96: THE COST OF BECOMING PRESIDENT
   REPUBLICANS TRY TO RECAPTURE SPIRIT OF THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
   SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN DEBATE
   CAMPAIGN '96: MCCAIN ON THE PRIMARIES
   FEDERAL COURT FIND NY PRIMARY BALLOT TOO RESTRICTIVE
   ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: THE NEXT STOPS
   FORBES BEATS DOLE, BUCHANAN IN ARIZONA PRIMARY
   NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY -- A VIEW IN CONTEXT
   EARLY CAUCUSES IN ALASKA AND HAWAII
   KANSAS CANCELS PRIMARY
   EDITORIAL EXCERPTS
   BUCHANAN BLAMES POOR SHOWING ON FORBES' SPENDING
   DOLE SAYS HE LOST IN ARIZONA BECAUSE OF FORBES' SPENDING
   CAMPAIGN '96: SEN. KASSEBAUM ASSESSES DOLE, BUCHANAN BIDS
   REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IOWA CAUCUS
   REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY
   PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES IN JOURNALISM
   FORBES MONEY: $4 MILLION SPENT IN ARIZONA
   CAMPAIGN 96: REPUBLICANS ON ROAD TO CALIFORNIA
   MURDOCH ON FUTURE OF NEWS CORP. AND PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
   THE FIRST SESSION OF CONGRESS 1789
   FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT'S FIRST INAUGURATION 1933
   THE NATIONAL ANTHEM 1931
   IKE WILL RUN FOR A SECOND TERM 1956
   FIRST REPUBLICAN PARTY MEETING 1854
   TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT RATIFIED 1951
   FREE OFFER FROM PUBLISHER
   =========================
   ---------------
   SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY

   JIM MALONE
   COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

   Senator Bob Dole won a big victory in the South Carolina
Republican presidential primary Saturday, easily defeating
commentator Pat Buchanan and two other challengers. The Dole
victory in South Carolina should re-establish Senator Dole as the
frontrunner in the Republican race for the White House.
   Senator Dole had the full support of South Carolina's
Republican political establishment and he put it to good use in
an easy win over Pat Buchanan.
   Former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander and magazine
publisher Steve Forbes trailed well behind, Mr. Forbes was third
and Mr. Alexander finished a disappointing fourth.
   Senator Dole won support from the vast majority of mainstream
and moderate Republicans and even did very well among social
conservatives and Christian activists.
   "This is a big one," Dole said. "But we still have a tough
road ahead. Tomorrow, Puerto Rico. Next Tuesday, (there are)
eight primaries. Next Thursday, New York. And then super-Tuesday
(March 12th) and on and on it goes. I would like to wind it up by
the end of March, if possible, so if you can help with that, why
I would appreciate it very much. But we are on a roll."
   But nobody is giving up after South Carolina. Pat Buchanan,
campaigning in Portland, Maine, told supporters that his campaign
still has a fighting chance for the Republican nomination if he
can make a good showing in Tuesday's primary in the southern
state of Georgia:
   "The sunbelt will open up if we get a breakthrough in Georgia
(on Tuesday) and after that we are going into the industrial
middle west, Ohio, Michigan. We are going to talk about NAFTA and
GATT and what they have done to the American manufacturing base.
(Cheers) one week later is California where we have been surging.
So, this campaign, we have got a fighting chance. The big
battlegrounds are in the next three weeks."
   But Mr. Buchanan's protectionist trade views may have cost him
a setback in South Carolina. Exit polls reveal that most voters
in South Carolina favor free trade as an important source of new
jobs.
   Even Lamar Alexander is sounding upbeat despite a poor fourth
place finish in South Carolina, a state where he had hoped his
southern roots would pay dividends. Addressing supporters in
Georgia, he still maintains that he is the only Republican
candidate who can defeat President Clinton in November:
   "Let Senator Dole keep doing what he does well, getting those
bills out of subcommittee (in Congress) and leading that Senate.
And let us give a Republican governor from the new south a chance
to lead the Republican revolution into the next century."
   Steve Forbes is focusing on next week's primaries in New
England on Tuesday and New York on Thursday.
   In fact, the pace of the Republican campaign will only
intensify over the next three weeks. More than 300 delegates will
be chosen over the next week, alone, with states in every region
of the country holding primaries.
   The South Carolina win could be a huge one for Bob Dole and it
is not without a measure of political revenge. In 1988, a
struggling Senator Dole was defeated here by George Bush on his
way to the Republican nomination and eventually the White House.
Now, Bob Dole is hoping that his South Carolina victory will have
a similar result.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   REPUBLICAN RACE AFTER SOUTH CAROLINA

   JIM MALONE
   COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA

   Senator Bob Dole is hoping his win in Saturday's South
Carolina primary is the breakthrough he has been looking for to
regain his status as the un-disputed frontrunner in the
Republican race for the White House. Senator Dole easily defeated
commentator Pat Buchanan and two other rivals in Saturday's
primary, receiving 45-percent of the vote. The Dole victory comes
just as the primary season is beginning to heat up.
   Senator Dole's win in South Carolina could not have come at a
better time. During the next two weeks, nearly 700-Republican
delegates will be chosen in 17 state primaries and caucuses. The
Dole victory clearly puts him in position to capture many of
those delegates and raises serious questions about the other
candidates.
   If Senator Dole was the biggest winner Saturday, clearly
former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander was the biggest loser.
His disappointing fourth-place finish in South Carolina shattered
the notion he could parlay his southern roots into political
dividends. Mr. Alexander must do well in either the Georgia
primary Tuesday or in one or more of the New England states this
week in order to continue his candidacy.
   The South Carolina results were also a bitter blow for Pat
Buchanan. He stumbled last Tuesday with a third-place showing in
Arizona and that lapse in momentum may have hurt him in South
Carolina. His protectionist trade views also seemed to work
against him. While thousands of South Carolina textile workers
have lost their jobs because of foreign competition, foreign
investment in the state has also created thousands of new jobs
and boosted the local economy.
   Steve Forbes can take some comfort in his third-place finish
ahead of Lamar Alexander. But he needs to have a good showing
either in Tuesday's New England primaries or in Thursday's
showdown with Senator Dole in the New York primary.
   It appears this race once again is Senator Bob Dole's to win
or lose. On the plus side, South Carolina showed his organization
remains strong and endorsements from big-name state Republicans
still carry some weight. On the negative side, many voters still
complain they do not hear a distinct message from Senator Dole as
to why he wants to be president and what he would do if he won
the White House.
   As Senator Dole regains his frontrunner status, Republican
operatives acknowledge long-term doubts about his candidacy will
linger.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: THE COST OF BECOMING PRESIDENT

   LINDA CASHDAN
   WASHINGTON

   The U.S. presidential election is eight months away, but, as
Republican hopefuls move from state to state vying for their
party's nomination, one thing is certain: The 1996 presidential
campaign will be the most expensive in history. As all the
candidates would agree, the cost of becoming president is rising
with every U.S. election.
   Is U.S. election campaign spending out of control? Is money a
perfectly acceptable means of getting a candidate's message out
to the public? Or has fundraising become a more important
criteria for getting elected in the United States than political
leadership?
   How close is the relationship between money and getting
elected in the United States? Very close, says Josh Goldstein, of
the center for responsive politics, a research group that tracks
U.S. campaign spending. Mr. Goldstein says in 88 percent of the
1994 congressional races, the candidate that spent the most won
the election. What is more, Mr. Goldstein says, no candidate who
spent less than 250 thousand dollars campaigning for a seat in
the House of Representatives got elected. Mr. Goldstein believes
money not only influences the outcome of U.S. elections, but also
influences lawmakers' decisions after they take office:
   "I think a classic example would be the health care debate in
1993 and 1994. Opponents and the proponents of that reform spent
over 100-million dollars in campaign contributions and in
lobbying and in advertising on that bill. And I think that as a
result of that, we still have not reformed the way we finance and
the way we provide health care in this country. I think that is a
classic example of how money affects not only elections but
affects legislation after the elections."
   Money has been a controversial issue in American politics
since the country's earliest days, when candidates rewarded their
supporters with whiskey. However, campaign spending did not start
skyrocketing until the late 1950s, when the era of costly
television advertising began. Charges that campaign funds had
been used illegally figured prominently in the Watergate scandal
of the 1970s, and that led to the biggest reform of U.S. campaign
laws in history in 1974.
   Those reforms sought to reduce the power of major contributors
by limiting individual donations to candidates, and setting up
public financing for presidential campaigns. It also strengthened
disclosure provisions by requiring identification of all
contributors. According to Goldstein:
   "There's more disclosure. They have not however fundamentally
changed the dynamic of big money dominating the process. For
example, one of the reasons the reforms of the mid-70s came about
was because the huge donations which were showing up in the Nixon
and Humphrey campaigns were illegal. What we've now done is we've
moved from a situation where those contributions that  were
illegal to a situation where, if you made those same
contributions to the political parties today, not only would they
be legal but they in some cases would not even be traceable."
   Mr. Goldstein says that's the fault of one loophole in the
1974 law called "soft money." While all donations to candidates
had to be identified, he says, "soft money" donations to
political parties could be made anonymously. The theory behind
this was that allowing American political parties to build up
their infrastructure would strengthen the democracy. In practice,
however, Josh Goldstein says, U.S. political parties don't use
"soft money"; they simply pass it on to the candidates of their
choice, thereby allowing the rich to funnel funds to candidates
anonymously through the party machinery:
   "We just saw the Philip Morris Company give over a million
dollars in "soft money" to the (two) national political parties
in 1995 alone. It is, in essence, a way of skirting the limits
and restrictions of who can give that were imposed by the 1974
reforms."
   What's more, Mr. Goldstein says, while the laws restrict how
much individuals can contribute to a candidate, they do not
restrict how much of a candidate's own money he can contribute to
his own campaign. That's why, at the moment, in the Republican
presidential primary, Bob Dole, who had amassed the biggest
contributions before the primaries began, is now running out of
money, but self-financed millionaire Steve Forbes is not.
   Mr. Goldstein says the impact of money in U.S. campaigns is
bigger than it is in other democracies because most other
democracies are based on the parliamentary system:
   "Instead of having very strong political parties, which are
the basis of ideas and policy decisions for their respective
members, we have political parties which are, in essence,
fundraising machines, and every elected official, every member of
Congress, is, in essence, their own personal political party. So
what we have, instead of having two or four or five political
parties which fund the campaigns and raise the money, we have 535
members of Congress who are doing the fundraising. I think that
changes the dynamic, because then those individual members are
more tied to, and dependent on, their funders. It heightens the
importance of the money in the process."
   ===============
   Political science professors Clyde Wilcox of Georgetown
University and Paul Hernson of the University of Maryland.
   Cashdan:  Generally speaking, Clyde Wilcox, what effect is
campaign spending having on the presidential campaign we're
watching right now?
   Wilcox: I think one of the lessons that this campaign is
showing us is that money isn't everything. If you had to guess,
based on money in, say, September of last year who would be the
very strongest candidates, you certainly would have had Phil
Graham in that pack, and Bob Dole would seem to be the odds-on
favorite by a mile. But (Pat) Buchanan has a constituency. Steve
Forbes has money but no constituency. Money is important but not
the whole story.
   Cashdan: Critics contend big spenders are more interested in
helping to select a winner than they are in voting according to
political ideology. Did Buchanan start getting more money when he
became more of a contender in the New Hampshire primary?
   Wilcox: His money is ideological. He's not getting any access
money yet. People give for two reasons in a presidential
campaign. One is for the ideas of the candidate, and the other is
for access, and Buchanan is not yet anyone that someone thinks is
going to win, so he's not getting access money yet. He's getting
lots of ideological money, mostly raised through the mail.
   Cashdan: Mr. Hernson, what about money for congressional
campaigners? Do funds go to winners? Isn't it true, for example,
that Republicans have been getting a higher share of
contributions since their take-over of Congress in '94?
   Hernson: the motives for givers are access-oriented. People
and groups give money because they want to grab a congressman's
ear. And then the other set of givers often give for electoral
goals. Rather than trying obtain access to members of Congress,
they want to change the composition of Congress. Now, the vast
majority of business oriented groups give their money to
incumbents because most incumbents win and they want to maintain
access to those individuals. The reason Republicans are doing
better than before is they are now more powerful. They maintain
control of both the House and the Senate. They set the
legislative agenda. And that makes them a more important target.
It's important to point out, however, that Democrats that are in
powerful positions, such as ranking members of committees and
party leaders, are still raising large amounts of funds. The
places where Republicans are doing exceedingly well are their
freshmen, some of their open seat candidates, and some of their
challengers are raising large amounts, larger than before,
whereas Democrats on the other hand are raising less money.
   Casdan: The Washington Post reports that House freshmen, many
of whom won election on pledges to alter the way government
works, received more than 24 million dollars in campaign
contributions the year after they won elections on those grounds
and that, rather than changing the way things were, they've sort
of been content with "business as usual" in Washington. Mr.
Wilcox, is backing a winner a good investment? In other words,
are these people being influenced by the fact that special
interests have given them a lot of money now?
   Wilcox: Well, that's the 24-million-dollar question of
campaign finance. There is evidence that in some kinds of
legislation, particularly "invisible legislation", that is when
the public is not paying close attention, the president is not
twisting your arm, that contributions do make a lot of
difference. Political scientists find that it's only on a few
bills that aren't that visible, but a lot of political
commentators believe that the influence is a lot stronger than we
ever find. So there's a raging debate about this. Clearly the
money does give you some access. There's no controversy about
that. If you've given a fair amount of money to a member, you can
at least make your case. Political scientists tend to think that
if that case runs against the interests of your (the
representative's) district or would get you (the representative)
in trouble with an important person in your political life, like
the president or party leader, that the money usually doesn't
influence your vote.
   Hernson: I would add to that that some times the access
doesn't influence the vote but it does influence what gets put on
the congressional agenda, and there are a few groups that have
shored up either political party and have insider input into what
the leadership considers to be priorities. For example, the
recent contract with America, a lot of the research and the
activity that went into that was funded by conservative groups
who would have access anyway, but now they have access to a
congressional majority rather than a minority.
   Wilcox: Let me follow up on that by adding that in the case
that paul's talking about, what the access buys you is influence
in actually drafting the legislation, so that on the final vote,
the pac (political action committees) money might not matter, but
what goes into that bill, pac money might make a difference.
   Cashdan: Josh Goldstein has told us that 100-million dollars
was spent on the health care debate by opponents of health care
and proponents of health care and that had a lot to do, he felt,
with the fact that nothing got accomplished on health care. Do
you agree with that Mr. Hernson?
   Hernson: I think that the publicity surrounding the health
care debate certainly harmed its passage, although there was
money spent on both sides. But the reason it harmed the
possibilities for health care reform are that it's much harder to
make change than keep the status quo. There were, however,
numerous other problems. The process that was to develop and sell
the health care package was fundamentally flawed. A new president
came in and rather than work with members of Congress who had
been there a long time and had expertise in the area, created a
panel headed by his wife and literally tried to draft a proposal
in secret and ram it down the throats of members of Congress.
That's not the way politics are conducted in Washington, DC, or
should be conducted.
   Cashdan: How do our presidential campaign financing laws
differ from congressional campaign financing laws, Mr. Wilcox?
   Wilcox: The general election, you're not allowed actually to
make a direct contribution to a presidential candidate. That
money comes from a fund of money that is created by your one
dollar check-off (on individual income taxes). During the primary
campaigns, the first 250 dollars of your contribution to a
presidential candidate is matched by that same fund. Both of
those are unique to presidential campaigns. In the presidential
campaign, in the nomination process, which we're going through
now, where you can give money, almost all of that money comes
from individuals. Political action committees (PACS) play a very
tiny role.
   Herson: The contrast with congressional campaigns is quite
strong. In the presidential race, the candidates have the option
of taking public funding. In congressional races there is no
option, so whereas in presidential contests we try to minimize
the impact of campaign cash, there is no even sense of softening
the effects of capitalism in congressional races. There, the
money regulates the amounts that can be given, but not the
amounts that can be spent by congressional candidates.
   Cashdan: Mr. Hernson, what does money buy, literally? I'm not
talking about votes now. I'm talking about... Television
appearances. What does it buy in the United States? Why are these
campaigns so expensive?
   Herson: Well, campaigns in the United States are
candidate-centered. Parties assist the candidates, but candidates
are responsible for establishing their own campaign team, for
creating their own strategies, and they purchase general
managers. They purchase the services of fund raisers, of
pollsters. There are targeting experts. There are people who
design and film television and radio ads. Of course, there's the
cost of putting those ads on the airwaves. Amounts are spent on
such things even as doughnuts for volunteers. Anything to get the
word out is important. It's a major advertising event, very often
for an incumbent who is fairly well known, and a challenger who
frequently, at the beginning of the race is completely unknown.
It's an expensive endeavor.
   Wilcox: Let me follow up on that by saying that it's often
asked why American elections are so much more expensive than
elections in Europe, and the information that has to be conveyed
in American elections is far more expensive. In a congressional
multi-party system, (in Europe) where the parties have the same
candidates running two or three or four elections in a row and
where they take the same positions, it's relatively a straight
forward bit of information you need to know: Remind you it's the
same candidate, remind you it's the same position. But in
America, what did Democrats stand for in 1996? Well, President
Clinton will presumably be the nominee, but that doesn't mean
that the Senate candidate in your state or the gubernatorial
candidate or the congressional candidate agrees with Clinton on
much of anything. And so the amount of information that we convey
in our elections is enormous in a comparative context.
   Hernson: And I would add that it's all, in terms of
congressional races, though the private sector that these funds
come, whereas in other democracies the governments provide money
to parties, which distribute it to candidates or create their own
party-focused campaign, and there's also the issue of free media
time that's set aside for candidates that are running for
national and sometimes state and local office. Here we have
nothing like that. The debates are probably the only thing that
is guaranteed free coverage over which the candidates have some
control.
   Cashdan: Defenders, though, say this is an expensive
proposition, that in fact we spend less on campaigns than our
biggest advertisers spend promoting their products in any given
year. Do Americans simply spend more, in general, to promote than
other countries. Is this part of our national personality?
   Wilcox: I agree with the general assessment that if you put
campaign spending and the comparison spending for advertising
beer for example, that we spend much less on elections and that
doesn't make a lot of sense, in some ways. Whether this is part
of the national character or not, I don't know. It is part of the
structure of our elections, which is, right now, that there are
Republican candidates within a party that are running. That
doesn't happen anywhere in most of the rest of the world. They
have to distinguish their messages from one another, build their
bases. And then in the general election we have 435 thousand
candidates trying to tell you why they're not the typical
Democrat, why they're not the typical Republican. You've got 66
Senate candidates. There's just a lot of information that needs
to get out here.
   Herson: The issue of costs has to be considered in terms of
the structure of the election and the election law. Our laws make
for very long campaign seasons, provide few outlets that are free
and only TV news coverage for candidates to get their messages
out, so everything does have to be paid for and that reflects the
fact that we prefer privately funded campaigns to publicly funded
campaigns.
   Cashdan: But isn't part of the problem that personality is
every bit as important in an American election as ideology. That
is not as true in other democracies, is it?
   Wilcox: It's often said that American elections are about
personality and that's irrational, but given our political
system, it's entirely rational to consider the personality of the
leader, because in the European system, once the prime minister
has made the decision, the party automatically backs that bill,
because there's party discipline, so it passes. The leader does
not need to use his or her personality to persuade. In America,
though, Bill Clinton needs to persuade Democrats and he needs to
persuade Republicans in order to pass his legislation. So the
personality of the leader, their ability to deal with people and
to build coalitions, is an important part of being a president.
   Hernson: Each member of Congress and each state and local
official runs on his or her personality, whereas in most of the
European nations the whole campaign is structured on the party
leader and the party apparatus follows the lead as do the
individual candidates that are running for the legislature.
   Cashdan: Spending, Mr. Hernson, spending today for the House
of Representatives is about, what? Four times as high as it was
20 plus years ago? How does that change the life of the average
congressman?
   Hernson: Well, members of Congress spend quite a bit of time
fundraising, and many claim to really hate it and most do, but
more importantly, virtually every member of Congress has a
campaign going almost all the time. Many have professional fund
raisers working year round. They send out newsletters informing
previous contributors of what they've done. They send out
solicitations regularly and, of course, all of this steps up in
the campaign season. It has helped keep members of Congress busy,
but, just as important, it has professionalized the campaign,
especially the fund raising aspects.
   Wilcox: Not only are we spending more money now, but the
campaign contribution limits are exactly the same as they were in
1974, which means that you have to push pretty hard because
inflation is eating into that money. Individuals could give a
thousand dollars in 1974. A thousand dollars in 1996 is worth a
whole lot less.
   Cashdan: Reform groups call for tightening limits on
contributions, setting up voluntary spending limits tied to some
sort of public support for campaigns. You both mentioned that
before. What are the objections to public spending as opposed to
private spending?
   Hernson: There are many. One would be that it would drain
money from the public treasury. Another would be that we'd be
further subsidizing government. A third would be that if the
spending limits are set too low, then they would be an incumbency
protection act, because incumbents are already well known among
their constituents. The impact of their spending is far less than
those of challengers, and if a challenger doesn't have enough
money to meet an initial threshold, then that challenger will
remain invisible throughout the race. Other objections are more
along the lines that in our country there are a lot of disparate
interests that should have the freedom to petition the
government. It's something in our constitution and Bill of
Rights, and many people equate spending with free speech.
   Cashdan: Mr Wilcox, should the system be changed?
   Wilcox: I think every person who studies this can imagine a
few of the laws being changed in ways they might like, but I
personally think that less money is not the answer. I study
voting behavior and one of the things that we always find is that
voters know very little about the candidates and that that
spending is associated with more information. In governors' races
for example, the more that is spent, the more the people know
about the candidates. I for example would advocate increasing the
contribution limits, rather than lowering them. They have been
static since 1974. We've had inflation just eating away more than
half the value of a contribution. And so people spend more time
raising money. I would think we should increase the limits on
contributions.
   Hernson: I would also encourage reformers to, and this is
difficult for them because the reformers are members of congress,
but I would encourage reformers to take a look at the problems
faced by challengers, especially congressional challengers,
because they have difficulties raising money and they also have
difficulty putting together an organization, and the irony is,
they're the ones that are least well known. So in the interest of
having more competitive elections, that would be a good thing.
It's important to make sure there are some resources available to
challengers. These need not be cash contributions or public
subsidies but perhaps free radio time, free television time, free
postage, that would give the challenger a leg up in the campaign
process.
   Cashdan: Mr. Hernson, finally, what are the chances of the
reformers and the reformed being the same people? What are the
chances of getting reforms in campaign contributions when they
have to be passed by the people in Congress who are, as those who
have already been elected, perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of
this system now.
   Hernson: I had the opportunity to testify before Congress and
all the political scientists were in agreement about what we
thought would be good. There was tremendous disagreement among
the committee members about what they thought would be good as
far as campaign finance reform. The odds of passage of a major
reform are probably fairly slim. There may be some more tinkering
with disclosure laws or with spending limits and contribution
limits for parties and individuals and political action
committees, but a complete overhaul is unlikely. Usually members
of Congress don't pass major sweeping reforms unless there's a
massive public outcry calling for it, such as Watergate which
really stirred up tremendous resentment of the people and forced
a change in the campaign finance laws.
   ===============
   Political science professors Clyde WIlcox of Georgetown
University and Paul Hernson of the University of Maryland.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   REPUBLICANS TRY TO RECAPTURE SPIRIT OF THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

   PAULA WOLFSON
   CONGRESS

   These are troubled times for the Republicans who control the
U.S. Congress. Gone is the heady optimism of their first days in
power. In this chaotic election year, they are trying to
recapture the unity and the focus they enjoyed in early 1995.
   It was a day in April, one of those brilliant spring days when
the world seems reborn. On the steps of the U.S. Capitol, members
of the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives
shielded their eyes from the sun as they celebrated the
accomplishments of their first 100 days in power.
   House majority leader Richard Armey led the cheers, saying:
   "Ladies and gentlemen, forgive me if I am all smiles (or
smiling a lot) this morning but the birds are singing, the cherry
trees are in bloom, baseball is back, and we have completed our
Contract with America!"
   But less than one year later, the promise of the spring of
1995 has turned into a winter of discontent.
   No one these days is talking much about the Contract with
America. It was the legislative agenda of the new House majority,
their election platform. There were ten major provisions to the
contract, dealing from everything from social programs to U.N.
peacekeeping. So far, only three have become law.
   The contract, the bible for Republican House candidates in
1994, seems to have disappeared from sight in this presidential
election year. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas tried to make the
contract a key element of his campaign for the Republican
presidential nomination. He dropped out of the race several weeks
ago.
   "Maybe I am living proof there is not that much interest in
it," Gramm said, "because I did talk about it."
   Some political observers say the Contract with America, or at
least its themes, will re-emerge once the Republicans decide on a
presidential candidate. Senator John McCain of Arizona is backing
Senate majority leader Bob Dole for the nomination:
   "I have urged the Dole campaign to do that. I think you are
going to see more of that from Senator Dole, without a doubt."
   But the contract was the work of House speaker Newt Gingrich,
and Mr. Dole has had little luck getting it through the Senate.
Most of the contract bills have languished for months. Efforts to
cut government regulations, balance the budget, and reform the
massive programs that help the elderly and the poor are moving
slowly, if at all. And even some conservative commentators say it
may be too late to revive the momentum Republicans enjoyed just
one year ago.  Democrats like Sherrod Brown of Ohio are playing
up the Republican mistakes. And Republicans like Gerald Solomon
of New York are on the defensive.
   Brown: it is clear that the Gingrich revolution is over.
   Solomon: Is the Gingrich revolution over? Don't kid yourself.
It is just beginning.
   Republicans have been holding numerous strategy sessions
lately. And many party members now admit their legislative agenda
may have been far too ambitious, that they tried to do too much,
too fast. They also acknowledge they mishandled the budget
negotiations, and are now blamed by many Americans for two
partial shutdowns of the federal government. Congressman Zach
Wamp of Tennessee says they had a lot to learn, particularly the
73 Republicans who were elected to the House for the first time
in 1994:
   "The president is an unbelievable politician, maybe the best
there has been in a long, long time. But on policy I think he has
very low grades (little public support). We have very high grades
on policy and for about two months we lost the politics game. The
president out-politicked us, if there is such a phrase. And we
now as freshman I think more and more recognize that you have got
to keep the political and the policy together and move forward.
You can't just be so strident that you are unreasonable or even
perceived to be unreasonable because perceptions are reality in
the real world in which we now all serve."
   Herein lies one of the great ironies of this election year.
The Republicans seem to be following in the footsteps of the man
they hope to evict from the White House, President Clinton.
   Mr. Clinton came to Washington in 1993 with a full agenda, but
fell far short of meeting his goals for the first year. He had to
step back, chose his legislative battles carefully, and devise a
new strategy. The Republicans are now trying to do the same.
   They are expected to follow a more limited agenda in the
months to come. House Republicans deny they have given up on the
Contract with America, but acknowledge they need a more practical
approach. As one new member of the congressional majority put it:
"It is time to move on."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN DEBATE

   JERRY MCKINNEY
   WASHINGTON

   The contest for the Republican presidential nomination has
moved to South Carolina which will hold its primary Saturday. The
four leading candidates Thursday met there in a spirited debate.
   Each of the four candidates called for a strong stance against
Cuba in the aftermath of the downing of two civilian U.S.
airplanes.
   Multi-millionaire magazine publisher Steve Forbes said the
United States should warn Cuba that force will be met with force:
   "We should have tightened the embargo a long time ago. If they
try to shoot down civilian planes again they should be put on
notice that we're going to shoot them down. We should put them on
notice right now, if they go up, they get shot down."
   Former television commentator Pat Buchanan also called for the
downing of Cuban planes if they attack civilian planes in the
Florida straits. Senate majority leader Bob Dole and former
Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander both criticized President
Clinton's actions in the matter and said the embargo against Cuba
should be strengthened.
   Those four candidates are considered the leaders in the race
for the Republican presidential nomination. No one else was
invited to participate in the debate.
   Most of the the debate focused on advertisements being used in
the campaigns, with each candidate being given the chance to
defend one of his own. That led to several spirited discussions,
including one in which Mr. Forbes called into question a number
of the business dealings of Mr. Alexander.
   Mr. Alexander responded by saying his ethics have never been
questioned, including when he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate
for the post of secretary of education.
   The candidates were all critical of the implementation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement with most of them saying the
president has failed to enforce the terms of the agreement.
   Three of the candidates, Mr. Dole, Mr. Buchanan and Mr.
Forbes, have won in earlier voting. Mr. Alexander has been
trailing but remains in the race in the apparent hope one or more
of the others will falter.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: MCCAIN ON THE PRIMARIES

   TOM MAHONEY
   WASHINGTON

   Republican presidential candidates are now campaigning in
South Carolina, where the first of 23 March primary elections to
choose delegates to party conventions will be held this Saturday.
The Republican nomination remains wide open after Tuesday's
balloting in Arizona and the dakotas.
   Senator John McCain [r-ariz.], who frequently speaks out on
key campaign issues, shared his thoughts about Tuesday's primary
results.
   Senator McCain offered some candid observations about
Tuesday's primary results in his state, as well as North and
South Dakota. Since the collapse of Texas senator Phil Gramm's
candidacy, John McCain has supported majority leader Bob Dole's
bid to win the Republican presidential nomination.
   Senator McCain said that despite Bob Dole's loss in Arizona's
primary and its winner-take-all prize of 39 delegates, he felt
good about the senator's overall performance:
   "Obviously, I would liked to have seen Senator Dole win. I
think it hurt the Dole campaign when Senator Dole did not engage
in a debate we had there [Arizona] and also he didn't spend as
much time there as others. Pat Buchanan literally covered the
state of Arizona. He was there for six days [before the primary
voting] and he had been there for a number of days before then."
   According to Senator McCain, there are two ways to interpret
Tuesday's outcome:
   "One, a significant setback for Buchanan and also Lamar
Alexander did not show up [make a respectable showing] in any of
the three states. In fact, in one of the states, North Dakota,
Phil Gramm beat him and, as you know, Phil Gramm has been out of
the race for some time. I think Mr. Alexander has to seriously
assess whether he wants to stay in the race or not.
   "And also, it's clear that Pat Buchanan gets around 30 to 35
percent of the Republican vote. When the rest of the vote is
divided up between Forbes, Dole and Alexander, then Buchanan
wins. There's no doubt in my mind when it's Dole versus Buchanan,
that Dole wins every time."
   With an eye on Saturday's primary in South Carolina, with 37
delegates at stake, Senator McCain took a hard look at the GOP
candidates based on their performances Tuesday:
   "I think, first of all, the Forbes campaign got a boost and a
well-deserved one. I would point out again that Steve Forbes
spent about four-million dollars in the state of Arizona on
media. let me just give you an estimate of what that means. I
spent four-million dollars in a Senate reelection race over a
two-year period. but Steve Forbes gets a boost nationwide, not
necessarily in the south.
   "Lamar Alexander...It now becomes critical that he do well in
South Carolina and the following Tuesday when there are several
other states as we know [with primary contests]. The Buchanan
campaign has to view this as a real setback because most of the
pundits, including, by the way, this one, were predicting a
Buchanan win in the state of Arizona.
   "The Dole campaign is alive. It was important that it get
these wins [the dakotas] because, clearly, the setback in New
Hampshire had had an effect throughout the country. So I think
the Dole campaign is going to get a boost and this is going to
heighten interest and concern about Saturday in South Carolina.
but more importantly than that, Tuesday, when we have a broad
array of states from all over the country, many of them in the
northeast, participating."
   Senator McCain thinks Steve Forbes, after victories last
Saturday in Delaware and Tuesday's triumph in Arizona, now
presents the biggest threat to achieving that all-important
one-on-one battle between Senator Dole and Pat Buchanan. John
McCain says Mr. Forbes, with all his money, can stay in the
primaries as long as he wants. And on one of the big issues:
   "I think Steve Forbes' flat tax proposal has been very well
received by the Republican voters and he has certainly shown some
formidability in this campaign."
   But Senator McCain, citing the highly negative tone of this
campaign, describes the millions of dollars Steve Forbes spent
for TV attack ads on Bob Dole in Arizona as almost
unconscionable. As a result, he says, all of the candidates'
negatives have been driven up.
   In these early weeks of scrambling from one primary to the
next, no clear front-runner has emerged from the pack of
Republican candidates. As for concerns that Senator Dole needs to
fine-tune his message and give people a reason to vote for him,
John McCain has a ready response:
   "He is sharpening his message. He needs to do more of that. As
you know, there was a changeover in some of his campaign staff. I
think you're going to see positive campaigning and more
visibility on the part of senator Dole...And clearly he needs to
do that."
   The senior Republican senator from Arizona believes the time
is fast approaching for Lamar Alexander to step aside. He thinks
the former Tennessee governor is at the moment of truth, if he
hasn't already passed it.
   John McCain says that even if Lamar Alexander makes a decent
showing in South Carolina, it is just a matter of time before he
drops out of the race. Then, his supporters will most assuredly
be Dole voters.
   With Republicans in control of congress for the first time in
40 years, some people wonder why the presidential candidates
aren't talking about the GOP's legislative agenda, specifically
the revolutionary Contract with America:
   "I don't know the answer to that except to tell you that I've
urged the Dole campaign to do that. I think you're going to see
more of that from Senator Dole without a doubt. That's what got
us the majorities, as you said, in 1994. And if we expect to
maintain our majorities in both houses and elect a Republican
president, we had better get back to it [contract provisions]
because that's what the American people are worried about.
   "Let me just make one additional comment, Pat Buchanan tapped
a very deep concern of the American people concerning job
security and failure of wages to keep up with the standard of
living. Our answer to that is the contract with America, a
balanced budget, let them keep more of their money by cutting
taxes, relieve the regulatory burden and let the economy grow and
help it grow."
   Senator McCain strongly believes that every Republican should
support the nominee of the party. He says it would be unfair not
to do that, whoever wins.
   But the senator believes Steve Forbes lacks the qualifications
to be president and that Pat Buchanan is talking about the right
issues but offering the wrong answers. John McCain is unwavering
in his support of Senator Dole and remains convinced that the
majority of voters reject Pat Buchanan's protectionist,
isolationist solutions.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   FEDERAL COURT FIND NY PRIMARY BALLOT TOO RESTRICTIVE

   BARBARA SCHOETZAU
   NEW YORK

   A federal court has decided that rules for getting onto the
ballot in the Republican presidential primary in New York state
are too restrictive. Barbara Schoetzau reports from New York the
court's determination allows businessman Steve Forbes to
challenge Senate majority leader Robert Dole throughout the
state.
   The rules to qualify in the New York Republican primary are
said to be the most complex and restrictive in the nation,
requiring candidates to collect thousands of signatures on
petitions. It is a time-consuming and expensive process that
favors a candidate who has the support of the statewide party
organization in this case, Senator Dole.
   Lee Miringoff, head of the Institute for public opinion at
Marist College, says the election rules reduced the number of
candidates in the New York primary:
   "Not only do you need all these signatures, you have to do it
by early in January, before anybody has any enthusiasm and bounce
from some of the early primary states. So you have to organize
early, you have to spend a lot of resources early and you need to
do it at a time when the campaigns are thinking elsewhere, not
New York. As a result, a lot of the candidates who are running
for president are nowhere on the New York ballot."
   A three-judge federal panel has decided unanimously the
Republican primary rules are unconstitutional and it has ordered
Mr. Forbes on the ballot throughout the state. In their ruling,
the judges said the Republican party put an "undue burden" on
candidates other than the favorite of the statewide party.
   The decision marks the first time two Republican candidates
have faced each other throughout New York state since the rules
went into effect 40 years ago.
   A third candidate, television commentator Pat Buchanan, may
also gain from the ruling. So far, Mr. Buchanan is on the ballot
in about half of the state's districts.
   Until the decision, the only Republican on the ballot
throughout the state was Senator Robert Dole, the long-time
front-runner for the Republican nomination. But in a series of
primary contests around the country, Mr. Dole has encountered
unexpected competition from several other candidates vying for
the Republican nomination. The Dole campaign had hoped for a
decisive victory in New York. But a public opinion poll released
Thursday shows that Mr. Forbes and the senator are almost tied.
   At stake in New York are 93 delegates to the party's
presidential nominating convention in August. That figure
represents about one-tenth of the number needed to become the
Republican presidential candidate.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: THE NEXT STOPS
   By Stuart Gorin

   As the U.S. presidential campaign trail moves from South
Carolina to several New England and southern states during the
next week, there is no clear cut leader in the battle for the
Republican nomination. Indeed, the mixed results to date keep
that race in turmoil and uncertainty -- as unopposed Democratic
President Bill Clinton watches from the side, and waits.
   Thus far, following the recent primaries in Arizona, the
Dakotas and Delaware, each of the major Republican candidates has
something to brag about.
   -- Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole: the original favorite
going into the race has won two primaries and a caucus, all
expected, in his neighboring farm states of North and South
Dakota and Iowa. An unofficial straw poll of delegates to the
annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington
gave Dole a slim victory over Buchanan, with Forbes placing a
distant third. Dole recently reorganized his campaign team --
replacing his top strategist and pollster -- in an urgent effort
to rejuvenate his campaign. Critics said his ads were flat and
unfocused and voters were getting the message that the candidate
had nothing to say other than it was his "turn" to be president.
   -- Steve Forbes: the millionaire publisher has the largest
number of convention delegates to date following primary wins in
Arizona and Delaware. Forbes is spending his own money on his
campaign -- about $25 million to date -- and answered critics who
said he was trying to "buy" the presidency with expensive
television ads by defending his right to spend it any way he
wants and pointing out that his campaign has not cost U.S.
taxpayers a penny.
   -- Pat Buchanan: the conservative commentator has won the New
Hampshire primary and the Louisiana caucus. Buchanan has a hard
core of conservative support, especially in the religious
movement, that observers put at about 30 percent. But critics say
he will have a tough time adding to his base. A recent New York
Times/CBS News poll said nearly half of Republican voters
nationwide describe Buchanan as an "extremist" who could not win
the general election.
   -- Lamar Alexander: the former Tennessee governor gained some
momentum with unexpected strong third place finishes in the early
contests but needs a victory soon to remain viable. He pushes
what he calls "fresh, conservative ideas" such themes as
privatizing welfare, a part-time Congress and a school and work
training voucher system, but these proposals have been largely
untested in the political marketplace. Political analyst Mark
Shields calls Alexander "everybody's second choice."
   According to Arizona State University political analyst
Patrick Kinney: "This race is rudderless, with voters grabbing a
little bit here and a little bit there. We're seeing a race
between four candidates, all of whom are weak and limited in
their appeal, none of whom seems capable of landing a knock-out
blow for now."
   Noting that "no candidate has any of that magical quality
known as momentum," the Washington Post pointed to an early
pattern of "the returns in one state having remarkably little to
do with the results in the next." The Baltimore Sun calls what
has emerged "the king-of-the-week pattern."
   But said Republican political strategist Ed Goeas: "Early in
the primary season, this is when the out party appears to be
weakest and appears to be very splintered. Of course, there is no
general election message yet. I don't necessarily view this as
abnormal." What still binds all the factions together, Goeas
said, "is the belief in small government."
   Of the 153 convention delegates chosen thus far, 60 are
pledged to Forbes. Buchanan has 37; Dole has 35; and Alexander
has 10. The remaining delegates either support another candidate
or are uncommitted.
   In South Carolina, where 37 delegates are at stake in the
nation's first southern primary March 2, the winner will receive
19 at-large delegates. It is an open primary, with no party
affiliation recorded for the state's 1.8 million registered
voters. The state has six congressional districts, and three
delegates will be awarded to the top vote-getter in each.
   State Republican Party Chairman Henry Masters said the vote
"will be indicative of what will happen in other southern
primaries" and "whoever gets the momentum leaving South Carolina
will have a big leg up on the rest of the fellows going into the
Little Tuesday and Super Tuesday contests." Dole's support in
South Carolina is bolstered by endorsements from the governor and
other key officials. Buchanan sees it as an area with strong
Christian conservative roots. Noting that South Carolina was "the
last Confederate state" during the Civil War, journalist Bob
Novak said that Buchanan "will be waving the battle flags."
   Wyoming holds its primary the same day as well, with voters
selecting 12 convention delegates pledged to the winner also on
an at-large and by-district basis.

   "Little Tuesday" on March 5 will involve 8 state primaries and
    1 caucus:

   -- Colorado: open to any registered voter regardless of party
      affiliation 27 delegates divided according to candidates' 
      vote shares

   -- Connecticut: closed (only registered Republicans may vote) 27
      delegates all given to the winner

   -- Georgia: open to any registered voter 42 delegates all
      given to winner according to district votes

   -- Maine: open 15 delegates, by proportional vote

   -- Maryland: closed 32 delegates, winner-take-all by state
      and districts

   -- Massachusetts: open 37 delegates, winner-take-all statewide

   -- Minnesota: open caucus 33 delegates to be selected at a
      later date

   -- Rhode Island: open 16 delegates, winner-take-all statewide

   -- Vermont: open 12 delegates, winner-take-all statewide

   In New York, where only a few of the presidential candidates
were listed on the ballot because of state rules requiring the
collection of signatures in each district supporting the effort,
a federal court has ruled that more names must be added.
   Forbes and Buchanan brought the challenge. Dole is on the
ballot in New York. Alexander and the other candidates are not
running in that state's primary.
   New York, which holds its contest March 7, is an electoral
prize -- 102 delegates, the second-highest number of any state.
Republican primary participants do not vote for candidates
directly, but for district delegates who are identified on the
ballot with their presidential preferences. Voters will elect 93
delegates and the remaining 9 will be appointed by the Republican
state committee.
   -------------
   
   -------------
   FORBES BEATS DOLE, BUCHANAN IN ARIZONA PRIMARY
   By Howard Cincotta

   In the latest round of Republican primaries, magazine
publisher Steve Forbes won the Arizona primary February 27, while
Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, as expected, swept both North
and South Dakota.
   With a message of economic optimism, and without the financial
constraints of his rivals, Forbes took approximately 34 percent
of the vote in Arizona. Dole, who limited his effort in the
state, was second with 29 percent, while conservative commentator
and writer Patrick Buchanan, campaigning for restrictions on
immigration, was third with 27 percent of the vote.
   Arizona is a "winner-take-all" primary, which means that
Forbes carries off all 39 of the state's delegates.
   In the Dakotas -- prairie farm states with economies and
outlooks similar to Dole's native Kansas -- the Senate Majority
leader won easily. He took 42 percent of the vote in North
Dakota, with Forbes second at 20 percent, and 45 percent in South
Dakota, where Buchanan was second in with 29 percent. Each state
has 18 delegates, which are split proportionally between the top
two finishers (those above 20 percent).
   Former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander was fourth in
Arizona and South Dakota, and fifth in North Dakota, behind even
Senator Phil Gramm, who had earlier pulled out of the race.
   All of the major Republican candidates face major challenges
in the crowded primary schedule ahead of them.
   Dole, the front runner, has shaken up his organization in
recent days, and worked to sharpen his message and performance on
the campaign trail. He has an overwhelming edge among
endorsements of leading Republican officeholders, and he should
win the next primary battle, South Carolina, scheduled for
Saturday, March 2. His superior organization will also be an
important advantage going into an accelerated primary schedule,
with eight states from Georgia to the New England states voting
on March 5, and six southern and border states holding primaries
on March 12, "Super Tuesday."
   But Dole has had trouble translating endorsements into votes,
as he learned in New Hampshire, finishing a narrow second to
Buchanan. Moreover, polls in a number of states show support for
Dole dropping, with comparable gains in support for Buchanan.
   Forbes' refurbished message of hope and opportunity, coupled
with his centerpiece proposal for a flat tax, clearly pulled him
to victory in Arizona. The Arizona victory is clearly a boost for
the Forbes campaign, but the upcoming primaries in the South and
New England may offer him few openings for a repeat victory.
Forbes is targeting one of the biggest prizes of all, however,
New York State. There, he, along with Dole, is the only candidate
who is on the ballot in all of New York's congressional
districts.
   Arizona is Forbes' second primary victory. In Delaware
February 24, Forbes won a small victory in a Republican
presidential primary that was virtually ignored by all the other
candidates. Forbes' 33 percent of the votes was only slightly
larger than Dole's 27 percent. Buchanan was in third and
Alexander fourth.
   Forbes' greatest advantage going into the next round of
primaries is money. By financing his campaign from his private
fortune, he does not face the financial limits confronting the
other candidates, who have accepted public funding. As a result,
Forbes has launched expensive television advertising campaigns of
a scope and duration that the other candidates simply cannot
match. Buchanan, for example, depends heavily on so-called "free
media," meaning interviews on news programs and talk shows.
Alexander's campaign is lagging for lack of money, and Dole has
spent so heavily in the early primaries that he must be careful
not to exceed the $25 million limit imposed by accepting public
funding.
   Buchanan, with his combative style and controversial proposals
on such issues as trade and immigration, doesn't lack for media
attention. And he has mobilized a passionate following with his
populist economic program, calls for sharp limits on immigration,
a strong anti-abortion stand, and rhetoric that criticizes big
business, labor and the federal government with equal fervor. But
whether he can attract more moderate Republicans and convince
them that he can beat President Clinton in a general election
remains an open question. Moreover, his protectionist views on
trade are completely at odds with a party that in recent years
has advocated free and open trade.
   After New Hampshire, Alexander saw an opening to portray
himself as the alternative to a faltering Dole on the one hand,
and the "extreme" views of Buchanan on the other. His
fourth-place finish in Arizona undermines that claim. Even though
the primary campaign moves into ostensibly friendlier turf in the
South, Alexander may have an increasingly difficult time
attracting support, money -- and votes.
   -------------
   
   -------------
   NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY -- A VIEW IN CONTEXT
   By David Pitts

   Pat Buchanan's narrow win in New Hampshire garnered big
headlines around the world because it was the first of the
nation's primaries and therefore drew the attention of hundreds
of media organizations.
   But Buchanan's victory in the Granite State must be viewed in
context. New Hampshire is a small state and, as a result, is
allocated comparatively few delegates -- 16 -- to the Republican
national convention. This compares to 39 delegates for Arizona,
for example, which held its primary February 27, and a whopping
102 for New York, which holds its on March 7.
   Moreover, the delegates from New Hampshire are awarded on a
proportional basis depending on the size of the vote count as
contrasted with some states -- Delaware and Arizona are two --
where the winner takes all. Consequently, Buchanan picked up a
majority of the delegate seats in New Hampshire, but by no means
all.
   As the Washington Times pointed out, Buchanan's win with 28
percent of the vote was lower than when he ran in 1992. He won 37
percent of the vote then in a two-man race with President Bush.
But the conservative newspaper also said it is "not especially
implausible," that the people who voted for him did so because
they agreed with him, rather than just as a protest vote.
   New Hampshire has gained a kind of mystique over the years in
American politics not only because it is first but because it has
been seen as a strong indicator of who eventually will win the
party's nomination.
   On the Republican side, for example, since 1952 every victor
in New Hampshire has gone on to win the nomination (although not
necessarily the general election) except one, Henry Cabot Lodge,
the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, who won the 1964 primary as
a write-in candidate, but then lost to Arizona Senator Barry
Goldwater. Although Goldwater won the nomination, he lost the
general election in a landslide to President Lyndon Johnson.
Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush all had won
the New Hampshire primary before gaining their party's
nomination. But Bush lost the general election in 1992.
   On the Democratic side, the mystique has been less evident.
Estes Kefauver won the 1952 and 1956 New Hampshire primaries, but
each time the nomination went to Adlai Stevenson. Stevenson lost
the general election both times, however, to Republican Dwight
Eisenhower. In 1968, although incumbent President Johnson won the
New Hampshire primary, anti-Vietnam War candidate Eugene McCarthy
garnered 42 percent of the vote, causing the press to label him
the psychological winner of the primary. Johnson later withdrew
from the race, but McCarthy did not gain the nomination. The
prize went to Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who did not enter
any primaries at all.
   In 1972, Edmund Muskie did less well than many people thought
he would. Even though he won the New Hampshire primary, George
McGovern was the eventual nominee. Gary Hart won New Hampshire in
1984, but the nomination went to Walter Mondale. In 1992, Bill
Clinton lost to Paul Tsongas, but Clinton clinched the
nomination. Clinton is the only person to have lost the New
Hampshire primary and gone on to win the presidency.
   The past is, of course, no certain guide to the future. In
1952, when the New Hampshire primary first began to be
significant in American politics, very few states held primaries.
Even if a candidate won all the primaries, there was much
wheeling and dealing, both behind the scenes and at the party's
national convention, before the nomination could be secured.
   But by 1996, New Hampshire was just one of 41 states holding
primaries. And this year, attention has quickly moved to other
states that have advanced the date of their primaries since 1992.
Already, primaries have been held in Delaware on February 24 (the
first ever there), and in Arizona and North and South Dakota on
February 27. This year, 23 states will hold their primaries
before the end of March and select almost 80 percent of the
convention delegates, making a brokered convention unlikely.
   -------------
   
   -------------
   EARLY CAUCUSES IN ALASKA AND HAWAII

   Little media attention was paid to caucuses held in Alaska and
Hawaii the end of January. In Alaska, Buchanan finished slightly
ahead of Forbes in an unofficial straw poll, with Dole a distant
third. However, the state's 19 convention delegates, who will not
be bound by the results of the poll, will not be selected until
the state convention in April. Hawaii's 14 delegates do not have
to state whom they are supporting until May.
   -------------
   
   -------------
   KANSAS CANCELS PRIMARY

   Kansas, which had scheduled its primary election for April 2,
has canceled the event. The move was carried out by the state
legislature and the governor in order to save money since it was
widely assumed that native son Bob Dole would win the Republican
event and President Clinton had no opposition on the Democratic
side.
   -------------
   
   -------------
   EDITORIAL EXCERPTS

   From the Baltimore Sun:
   "...In measuring Tuesday's results, it is clear that the big
winner was a resurgent Steve Forbes and the big loser was
populist Pat Buchanan. Mr. Forbes won all of Arizona's 39
delegates with a $4 million blitz of TV ads while Mr. Buchanan
finished a disappointing third after campaigning hard. This
blunted his New Hampshire momentum and underscored his inability
to get more than a third of the Republican vote by baiting the
establishment."

   From the New York Times:
   "...Mr. Forbes' camp attributes its candidate's victory to the
appeal of his flat-tax proposal and his message of "less
government and more freedom." In fact, however, that is not the
main reason he has been in a factor in the campaign. His
candidacy points out the flaw in a system where promiscuous
spending can buy prominence that has not been earned in either
public service or through distinguished performance in the
private sector. Mr. Forbes is where he is not because of
accomplishments but because of his idiosyncratic willingness to
spend lavishly his inherited fortune."

   From the Wall Street Journal:
   "...As for Mr. Buchanan, Arizona's third place finish was
surely a blow. The Southwestern state, with its populist
traditions and immigrant problems, should have been perfect for
the "Crossfire" host to expand beyond his 25 percent to 30
percent voter base....Arizona, with its export and high-tech
industries, may be the first state in which Mr. Buchanan met
voters who understand their future lies with economic growth tied
to exports and a global marketplace."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   BUCHANAN BLAMES POOR SHOWING ON FORBES' SPENDING

   JOHN PITMAN
   WASHINGTON

   In Tuesday's primaries, conservative political commentator Pat
Buchanan was unable to capitalize on the popularity he gained
last week in New Hampshire. Mr. Buchanan finished third in
Arizona, third in North Dakota and second in South Dakota. But on
national television Wednesday morning, Mr. Buchanan said he still
believes he can win the Republican nomination.
   Mr. Buchanan blamed his poor showing in Arizona almost
entirely on the four-million dollar media campaign waged by
millionaire publisher Steve Forbes:
   "He spent 40 dollars a vote and that's very tough to
overcome."
   Mr. Buchanan called his loss in Arizona "a disappointment,"
but said he was encouraged by the record-setting voter turnout.
He added that he believes he still ranks among the three top
contenders for the Republican nomination.
   But recent polls have suggested Mr. Buchanan is losing support
among some conservative Christian groups. Another poll taken in
North Dakota found up to 50 percent of voters believe Mr.
Buchanan's views are "extremist."
   In a televised interview Wednesday, Mr. Buchanan dismissed the
poll results, saying the only thing they proved was how
successful his rivals' negative ad campaigns have been:
   "If people call you names consistently and you don't have the
money to answer them, some people are going to believe it. That's
just the nature of politics."
   Mr. Buchanan is now in South Carolina campaigning for
Saturday's primary there. Among his scheduled campaign
appearances are stops at a manufacturing plant and a church.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DOLE SAYS HE LOST IN ARIZONA BECAUSE OF FORBES' SPENDING

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   The American presidential race remains highly unsettled, after
primary elections Tuesday in three western states. Publisher
Steve Forbes took the day's most important contest.
   The Forbes campaign seemed to be fading in recent weeks. But
the wealthy magazine publisher has won the Arizona primary and
all the national convention delegates at stake.
   Senate majority leader Bob Dole, whose own campaign has
struggled, was second in Arizona, while conservative commentator
Pat Buchanan placed third. The senator says he lost because Mr.
Forbes could afford to spend heavily on television commercials:
   "Well, four-million dollars is a lot of money to spend in
Arizona for television (advertising) and that's what Forbes spent
and he won a narrow victory. He spent a lot of money in South
Dakota too and it apparently didn't take there."
   Mr. Dole won the primaries in South and North Dakota. He hopes
to reestablish himself as the Republican front-runner by winning
the South Carolina primary this Saturday. The voting begins a
major round of southern primaries in the coming weeks, which will
play a crucial role in deciding who will run against President
Clinton.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: SEN. KASSEBAUM ASSESSES DOLE, BUCHANAN BIDS

   TOM MAHONEY
   WASHINGTON

   In Tuesday's presidential primary elections, publisher Steve
Forbes was the big winner. His triumph in Arizona's
winner-take-all balloting earned him 39 delegates to the
Republican nominating convention, and the delegate lead in these
early weeks of the primary season. Senator Bob Dole, meanwhile,
finished slightly ahead of commentator Pat Buchanan in Arizona
and scored twin victories in North and South Dakota.
   But beyond the results of these primaries, the Republican
presidential hopefuls are about to begin a make-or-break month of
campaigning.
   After Tuesday's primaries, Republican presidential candidates
are gearing up for the pivotal month of March with its 23
primaries and more than 1,100 delegates at stake.
   Senator Nancy Kassebaum believes her Kansas colleague in the
U.S. Senate, majority leader Bob Dole, is the GOP candidate best
able to defeat Bill Clinton on election day, November 5th. In an
interview she described Bob Dole as a very sincere and dedicated
public servant who's respected by politicians from both parties:
   "In politics today, compromise has become sort of a tawdry
word, but that is really what makes it [the political process]
work. And at some point, without compromising your principles,
you do have to work out negotiations that allow major legislative
efforts to move forward. And I think Bob Dole has done that
extremely well.
   "So I think he brings to it what I believe is important today
in a president. Someone who understands the legislative process,
who understands how Washington works."
   Nancy Kassebaum thinks one reason for commentator Pat
Buchanan's appeal is that he's addressing a problem which has
clearly concerned people for a couple of years:
   "Pat Buchanan has spoken to it with a passion that some of the
rest of us perhaps haven't, in saying that people worry about job
security. Times have changed in the workplace and whereas you
used to be able to know if you went to work for [automotive
giant] General Motors, you probably had a job for life and maybe
[comparable work] your sons and daughters following that in the
future. Now that is not guaranteed at all and there's a lot of
turmoil about what that means."
   According to Senator Kassebaum, this far-reaching anxiety
stems from dramatic changes in the global marketplace. The
result, she says, is that more people are worried about such
matters as health care, paying bills...Making it from one day to
the next. however, she thinks that while Pat Buchanan speaks
passionately and gets people all stirred up, he's proposing the
wrong solution:
   "He tends to be far more isolationist and protectionist and it
harkens back to the belief that you can protect yourself and sort
of draw within your shell. You can't today. You can't. And
anybody who's going to grow...Any country that's going to grow in
the future is going to have to be a country that expands its
trade and recognize that those trade relationships become
enormously important.
   Senator Kassebaum acknowledges the conservative commentator's
power of persuasion, but wonders if he can sustain his push all
the way to the Republican national convention, which begins
August 12th in San Diego, California:
   "I don't know if he has the staying power to really carry
through to the convention. But he has a solid base of support
that will always be there for him. Now it's minimal, but you can
count on it to turn out. And I think if that is going to be
counteracted successfully for Republicans, we're going to have to
articulate a better concern about the issues that Pat Buchanan
has tapped into."
   Senator Kassebaum says one such issue is the wage stagnation
of American workers. That speaks to the related concerns over job
security and employee self-esteem in the volatile corporate
workplace.
   Meanwhile, Nancy Kassebaum doesn't think her fellow kansan,
Senator Dole, needs to be more aggressive on the campaign trail.
She says he has plenty of enthusiasm and nobody knows politics
better than Bob Dole. But she told us she'd share this
observation if someone in the Dole camp asked her for advice on
his campaign:
   "What he does need to do, and it has always been hard for him
to do, is say 'this is my agenda.' and it needs to be several
major themes that he lays out and specifics to some ideas that he
will keep focused on during the campaign.
   "I have great confidence and respect for Senator Dole, but he
does tend to sometimes when he speaks, and he likes to speak
without [the text for] a speech, pick up on a whole lot of
different ideas and gets lost on what his central focus is."
   Senator Nancy Kassebaum believes the negative tone of much of
the campaigning has divided Republicans. Even more important, she
says, the bruising primary process will weaken Republicans as
they head into the general election campaign.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IOWA CAUCUS

   PAUL FRANCUCH
   CHICAGO

   I cast my lot with Republican voters the night of the Iowa
caucus and joined a crowd of them at the small St. John's United
Methodist Church in south Des Moines, the state's capitol city.
Democrats were at the church too, but there was no contest among
them, President Clinton is running unopposed. Republicans on the
other hand, had nine candidates running in this "caucus", an
Algonquian Indian tribe word which means a "meeting of elders."
Republican respected "elder" at this caucus was a retired
military officer named Charlie Putbrese (put-brease), who was
elected to preside over the gathering which started promptly at
seven in the evening.
   This was the culmination of months of campaigning around Iowa
by the Republican hopefuls. The time of decision. Caucuses
represent democracy in action at the local level. Any registered
voter in the state can participate. People who attend caucuses
usually have studied the campaign issues. They've learned about
the candidates and even attended some of their rallies.
   This year, many got their messages from radio and TV
commercials. For some voters, that message was a mixed one:
   Dole spot: "If you're like me, you're sick and tired of the
negative ads by Steve Forbes. The vicious ads he's running about
Bob Dole are just not true...."
   Gramm spot: "He believes government can't replace family,
faith and freedom and that a president must keep his word. Phil
Gramm. President. The believer."
   At a pre-caucus rally I attended for candidate Lamar
Alexander, a former governor from the southern state of
Tennessee, I asked Iowan Charlie Moench what he thought of the
often negative tone of the commercial messages broadcast prior to
the caucus:
   "I think it's deplorable."
   Francuch: Have you ever seen anything like this before? Did
you ever think that it would get to this state?
   Moench: Not in the Republican Party.
   Francuch: What does that say to you?
   Moench: It's not the best of times, because some of this will
be ammunition that will be used against the nominee, whoever it
is eventually."
   Many people I spoke with at rallies around Iowa echoed that
sentiment. And it made some people like Jim Adair remain
uncommitted on a candidate up to the very last minute:
   "Well if you can believe it after all the commercials and
stuff we've been going through the last couple of weeks, I'm
still undecided at this point."
   At a rally for millionaire magazine publisher Steve Forbes,
curious Iowans came to hear this self-proclaimed "outsider"
politician deliver a message of hope on changing the system of
taxation.
   Chris Conrad drove more than 200 kilometers on a Saturday
night just to hear Mr. Forbes speak:
   "I think he's really intelligent, from what I've seen, and I
like the idea that he is spending his own money to run his
campaign, not tax payer money, not pac (political action
committee) money, not lobby money. He's in nobody's 'pocket.'"
   Mr. Forbes attracted a few hundred people to a fancy Iowa
hotel, delivering the deadpan dialogue he had repeated at stops
along the campaign trail, a smile fixed to his face, pronouncing
the current tax system a corrupt anti-family, anti-growth beast
which deserved a send-off worthy of Dracula:
   "The only thing to do with this monstrosity is to scrap it,
kill it, drive a stake through its heart, bury it, and hope it
never rises again/"
   Steve Forbes spent, by some estimates, between two and four
million dollars advertising his message around Iowa. He finished
in fourth place, earning less than 10,000 caucus votes statewide.
Candidate Phil Gramm, the senior senator from Texas, spent the
Saturday before the caucuses circling Iowa with
actor-of-heroic-character fame, Charleton Heston, in tow. Mr.
Heston was a big attraction, but not a big vote-getter for
Senator Gramm.
   "I've spent the entire day in Iowa," Heston said, "campaigning
since 7:30 this morning in several cities, I've forgotten how
many, on behalf of the man I think will be the next president of
the United States."
   Senator Gramm, while having perhaps the best campaign
organization for the Iowa caucus, finished fifth. He dropped out
of the presidential race one day later. Entertainment was also
the order of the day at a rally for candidate Lamar Alexander.
This former governor and secretary of education (under President
George Bush) entertains crowds by playing the piano and wearing
what has become his campaign trademark, a red and black checkered
flannel shirt. At a rally in Des moines, Nashville singer Steve
Wariner warmed up the crowd. And Mr. Alexander appealed for
votes, saying he's spent a lot of time travelling Iowa to
personally meet people, rather than appeal for votes through
nasty television attack ads:
   "I believe that 80 days meeting and getting to know the people
of Iowa is worth 10 million dollars worth of negative
advertising. I'm willing to stick with you."
   A rally by a religious political force known as the "Christian
Coalition" attracted a big pre-caucus crowd by featuring a parade
of candidates, each of whom was given about 10 minutes or so to
appeal for votes. Cheers of approval filled the church when
columnist and commentator Patrick Buchanan ticked-off points on
his legislative agenda:
   "We're going to put the full power and authority of that Oval
Office, that bully pulpit, behind a constitutional amendment to
restore voluntary prayer and voluntary bible reading to the
public schools of America. We're going to bring back the god of
the bible, and we're going to drive the gods of secular humanism
right out of public education in America. And we can do it!"
   Returning to the church where I watched Iowans caucus, about
10 minutes were set aside before the vote so that ordinary
citizens could stand up for a minute or so and make brief
campaign speeches for the candidates they supported. These were
neighborhood residents, not polished politicians who made simple
but often effective appeals. And then came the vote.
   It went quickly and smoothly. Caucus President Charlie
Putbrese was pleased with how things were going and with the
turnout of more than 100 people from the neighborhood. In past
caucuses, he says, they'd be lucky to attract 15 people. I asked
Charlie why he thought turnout this year was so good?
   "I'm glad it makes my job harder, but I'm really happy to see
people starting to really take advantage of their vote. I mean,
people gave their lives. I spent quite a few years in the
military and people gave their lives for their country and for
the right to vote. And if we don't use it, it's going to slip
away from us. And I think people are realizing that. And they're
coming back, they're starting to vote. And we're doing to turn
this country around.
   So the most votes went to Bob Dole with 27, second place to
Lamar Alexander with 22, third place to Pat Buchanan with 20,
Steve Forbes was fourth with 14 votes. And Phil Gramm was fifth
with 13 votes."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY

   NICK SIMEONE
   WASHINGTON

   Covering the first major contest of the presidential campaign
is a bit like running to catch a train that's about to leave the
station. That's especially true of one of the candidates who's
riding a wave of popularity, like Pat Buchanan, who was in New
Hampshire where I caught up with him at one campaign stop. At
this stop, he kept a crowd of several hundred supporters waiting
while dozens of television camera crews jockeyed for the best
shot, all of them training their lenses on a flood-lit podium
bearing a Buchanan for president campaign poster.
   Even before he arrived, local police and Buchanan bodyguards
fanned out, working to push back the crowd and arguing with
reporters over who got to stand where. Out of sight, Mr. Buchanan
was enveloped in a different kind of crowd, not of supporters but
of TV, radio and print journalists already firing questions at
the candidate. Many of us crowded around him trying to get some
real news beyond the campaign speeches which all of us had heard
by now several times.
   Buchanan speaking to reporter:
   Buchanan: What's the latest poll?
   Reporter: It puts you ahead of Bob Dole.
   Buchanan: I think that poll is premature and I think this.
Look these polls are really moving around all over the place.
There's no doubt we've been surging since Iowa. I think Lamar
(Alexander) is. My guess is that Steve Forbes is coming back
because he's gone positive and I think Senator Dole had a very
bad night last night so it's probably tightening up. But I don't
think that's probably true. But we don't have our own pollsters
so I don't want to comment on someone else's poll. My gut feeling
is we're surging and I just don't know where it's at right now. "
   He then pushed past us and into the restaurant and into the
waiting crowd which had come to hear his finely-tuned message of
trade protectionism and an insular foreign policy agenda based on
putting 'America first':
   "We stood up when no one else would, when no one else did on
these issues of NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement),
and GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and the
loss of American jobs overseas and the surrender of our national
sovereignty to these institutions of the so called new world
order. Look what happened to America first. "
   Pat Buchannan is probably now second only to President Clinton
in the number of reporters who accompany him as he flies around
the country, trying to say and do the right things to maintain
his lead ahead of the barrage of primaries and caucuses before
the end of March. And like the president, Mr. Buchanan now has
Secret Service agents protecting him. His early rise in the polls
has brought him the most attention of his political career. But
with that comes a virtual traveling media village, one with a
sheer size and appetite that can get in the way of the candidate
and his supporters. It's a dynamic that at times breeds
frustration for the candidate whose goal is to get a specific
message heard by the swarming media, who need a headline and that
one in a million photograph.
   Every four years, New Hampshire plays host to what is arguably
the most closely watched vote of the election year apart from the
November presidential election itself. It shapes what themes the
candidates will put before the cameras in an effort to leave a
lasting impression with voters.
   "I came up here in 1992, '91 with Shelly and no one was up
here, Buchanan said. "You know the whole reaction in Washington
DC when we came off a talk show and challenged the president of
the United States in 1o weeks before the New Hampshire primary?
The reaction was mockery and laughter and ridicule. Who's
laughing now Pat?"
   Finally the rally ended, the TV lights went off, the crews
took their cameras down and it was time for candidates, reporters
and other hangers-on to move on to another event or speech
somewhere else. Mr. Buchanan's chief rival, Senate majority
leader Robert Dole didn't do so well in New Hampshire. Political
analysts say he failed to be specific about his ideas for the
future and instead tried to win the state's primary by relying on
his senior standing in the Republican party.
   At many stops, like this one, Mr. Dole spoke in vague
generalizations rather than concrete proposals about what he
would do as president:
   "We are the greatest nation on the face of the earth. And I
want to provide leadership as we go into the next century. And if
you're looking for steady, tested proven leadership, than I want
you to vote for Bob Dole. I will bring America together."
   I talked with one of my colleagues, Frank Sesno of the Cable
News Network talked to me about reporting on the campaign trail:
   Sesno: Covering this thing is non-stop and it's a little bit
unreal. Small groups like this that all together add up
eventually to primary day in new hampshire or elsewhere.
   Simeone: But when you come out to an event like this, what is
it that your editors are asking you to get, what is it that they
want?
   Sesno: What we're looking for in any speech is news, something
that is said tonight that we have not heard said a hundred times
before. Generally we won't get that. So then what we're looking
for is a sense of the candidate. What does he or she project
about the future, what do they want to do for America. What do
they define as America's place on the global stage.
   But getting a candidate to spell out such views sometimes take
a back seat when reporters smell a sexier story such as a scandal
or a personal embarrassment. Like in 1992 when an Arkansas woman
told reporters she had an extra-marital affair with then
candidate Bill Clinton. In New Hampshire, many expressed the
thought, or was it the hope, that such a thing might happen
again, this time to one of Mr. Clinton's Republican opponents.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES IN JOURNALISM

   MATTHEW SCHNEIDER
   WASHINGTON

   Campaigns for Presidential candidates in the United States
once meant that office seekers would visit factories and talk
with workers, or go to civic meetings to give speeches and mingle
with audiences. Often the candidates would attempt to spread
their message and promote themselves by walking streets and
talking to voters. Recent political campaigns, however, have been
noticeably different because of the candidates' dependence on the
mass media for spreading their messages.
   American news has recently focused on how well or poorly the
candidates in Republican presidential primary campaigns use the
media. The discussions range from one candidate spending millions
of dollars of his own money for broadcast advertising, to another
candidate's dependence on so-called photo-opportunities because
he can't afford television. All of the candidates employ someone
who serves as a media consultant. And the politicians craft their
speeches so radio and television reporters can use 20 to 30
second lively phrases called "sound bites."
   Leonard Sussman is a senior scholar at Freedom House, a
Research Institution dedicated to strengthening free press around
the world. He says the change from the traditional
person-to-person campaigning to the extraordinarily heavy
dependence on mass media can be described as going from "retail"
to wholesale." Mr. Sussman says this serves to increase the
importance of the media itself:
   "The individual contact with individual voters has been
downplayed and in its place, one sees much more the exposition of
views and projections of ideas over the mass media; and the mass
media, of course, then take on a much more important role in
determining the outcomes of elections."
   Leonard Sussman, who is also a journalism professor at New
York University, believes the traditional role of reporters on
the campaign should be to act as an interpreter between the
candidate and the public:
   "This is more true, of course, in the newspapers and magazines
than it is in radio and television where one sees first-hand the
individual politician speaking for himself or herself. But, in
the print press, newspapers, magazines, it's the journalist who
condenses the version he gets from the politician, puts it forth
in his or her own words in paraphrase or maybe, perhaps more
extensive reporting. But in any event, there is a selection that
goes on; the journalist decides what is the high point (main
meaning) of the speech, what is the high point of the action
taken by the politician."
   Mr. Sussman says that in recent campaign years reporters have
faced economic, competitive and other pressures to get the
hottest, or most controversial quotes by the politician. And he
says, these quotable phrases, help sell newspapers or magazines,
or entice people to tune in to radio or television reports:
   "So that you have this scramble on the part of journalists to
be there first; to be there, with in a sense, with the loudest,
the most colorful exposition. And, this in turn, may, in fact
tend to distort the campaign. And I think in some cases in the
present campaigning that's going on that's exactly what's
happening."
   Leonard Sussman says this kind of coverage tends to distort
the candidates messages, it also often neglects important
messages that the candidates are offering. Mr. Sussman admits he
is somewhat disappointed at the shallow coverage of the issues in
the Republican campaign for the party's presidential nominee. He
says the candidates have not adequately addressed the important,
complex issues of foreign policy, trade, and economics.
   Sometimes, says professor Sussman, this trend spills over into
day-to-day coverage of the news by avoiding in-depth reporting of
complex subjects like foreign news or economics.
   Marvin Kalb, a retired diplomatic correspondent with more than
30 years experience, believes new technology is partially
responsible for the changes in election campaigns. He notes, for
example, that Republican Pat Buchanan has taken advantage of
so-called talk radio and television interview programs to get
extremely wide, and free publicity. Mr. Kalb is now the director
of the Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard
University. He suggests that technology has created, in his
words, "a problem" in the way journalists cover political
campaigns. As an example, Marvin Kalb points to news coverage of
the recent primary election in New Hampshire:
   "A journalist can arrive in Manchester, New Hampshire and
spend a great deal of time simply in his or her hotel room
watching C-SPAN or CNN and get a great deal more off television
then they could if they were on (out) simply covering the
campaign. So there are a lot of changes and there is a complaint
on the part of many people that as a result of these changes,
people themselves have come to feel somewhat disconnected from
the entire process. I'm not sure that's accurate but that's what
a lot of the scholars say."
   Marvin Kalb and Leonard Sussman agree that another change, not
only in political coverage, is in the traditional role of the
journalist of just giving the news. They see many reporters who
don't feel comfortable simply giving the news, these reporters
feel they need to inject their own opinions. Mr. Kalb says these
are the journalists who begin each sentence in their reporting
with the words, "I think...":
   "Most Americans really just want their information straight,
undiluted, clear, objective as possible. At this particular point
there is this urge to get out there and give your opinion. The
other side of the problem is that it sells. In other words, 'it
works' and if it were not for that, I think the people who are
sponsoring these (news) programs would probably stop it (cease
sponsorship)."
   Leonard Sussman sees the need for a reassessment of the way
politics and other news events are covered:
   "I think we must see a change, if one has any sense of
optimism about the future of democracy and the future of the
society. There has to come a time, it seems to me, when somebody
will stand up and say; 'enough of this; let's now discuss the
facts; let's now discuss very quietly, very sensibly,
point-by-point what is being forward in the somewhat demagogic
fashion.' and, it seems to me that the public is ready for that."
   Professor Leonard Sussman says the rapidly advancing
communications technology will ultimately serve to improve the
democracy of the United States by better informing Americans. And
he likewise sees similar benefits for the citizens of the
emerging democracies around the world.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   FORBES MONEY: $4 MILLION SPENT IN ARIZONA

   JOHN PITMAN
   WASHINGTON

   Millionaire publisher Steve Forbes is the Republican candidate
in the spotlight after winning the Arizona primary. Mr. Forbes's
victory puts him ahead of his two closest rivals in the hunt for
delegates to the national Republican convention. But as the
campaign continues and costs rise, Mr. Forbes finds himself
answering more questions about the limits of his personal
fortune.
   Steve Forbes was in New York state Wednesday, fielding
questions about the financial cost of his campaign.
   Mr. Forbes has spent about 25-million dollars, 23-million from
his personal bank account. In Arizona, the Forbes campaign spent
nearly 4-million dollars, mostly on television campaign ads.
   Both of Mr. Forbes' main Republican rivals, Senate majority
leader Bob Dole and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, have
accused Mr. Forbes of trying to buy the nomination. Mr. Buchanan
noted each vote Mr. Forbes received in Arizona cost nearly
40-dollars.
   But in a television interview, Mr. Forbes defended his right
to spend his money any way he wants, and pointed out his campaign
has not cost U.S. taxpayers a penny:
   "The key is getting the message across, and the voters judge
the message and the messenger. I have spent less in this
campaign, so far, than Senator Dole has, but we have taken our
message directly to the voters and it is working."
   The Forbes family fortune is estimated at around one-billion
dollars. But in another interview, the candidate suggested a
spending limit. He said he would spend as much money as it takes
to say in the race, but not a penny more.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN 96: REPUBLICANS ON ROAD TO CALIFORNIA

   GREG FLAKUS
   LOS ANGELES

   The unexpected surge of Republican presidential candidate Pat
Buchanan has thrown the race for the Republican nomination into
turmoil. Some party leaders have predicted that the contest could
continue right through the California presidential primary on
March 26th, or even end with a brokered convention in San diego
in August. At least one major Republican commentator thinks it
will all be over long before the candidates reach the golden
state.
   Californians have long complained that while their state sends
more delegates to party conventions and has more electoral votes
in the presidential elections, smaller states like Iowa and New
Hampshire get most of the attention in an election year because
their contests come first. New Hampshire sends 16 delegates to
the convention. There are more than ten times that number (163)
at stake in California.
   California moved its primary up from June to March this year,
but other states responded by moving their primaries, too, and
New Hampshire maintains its first-place position by state law.
   If a clear front-runner had emerged from New Hampshire with
the prospect of winning the next several primaries and caucuses,
there would have been little excitement left in the contest by
the time California's primary came around on March 26th. But many
political analysts and party leaders see a different story
emerging. Pat Buchanan's populist message brought him to victory
in New Hampshire over Senator Bob Dole, who had been seen as the
front-runner. At the same time, former Tennessee Governor Lamar
Alexander has moved up to third position, pushing himself as the
moderate conservative alternative. Millionaire publisher Steve
Forbes, whose support has fallen off sharply in recent weeks,
still speaks of going all the way and certainly has the money to
continue.
   So, will the big showdown come in California? Probably not,
according to Republican commentator Hugh Hewitt:
   "The odds are still against it. On March 12, Florida and Texas
vote, among other states, which are key electoral college states
that should direct the Republican party where it ought to go.
Then, on March 19, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio vote, again vital
states for the fall (November) contest, and only a week after
that does California vote on March 26th. I have to think that the
results of Florida, Texas, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio will have
conclusively determined who the nominee will be and, of course,
those follow New York on March seventh. So, the major states,
except for California, will have weighed in."
   George Skelton, a Los Angeles Times columnist who follows
politics in the California state capital of Sacramento, says many
state Republican leaders agree with Mr Hewitt, but not all:
   "Other people, however, see it coming down to California for
the obvious reasons that Alexander and Dole will not knock each
other out and Buchanan has legs, he can go all the way. I think
the likely thing is that Buchanan, certainly, and Dole and/or
Alexander, one of the two, will be here. Maybe Forbes, too. It
could be decisive, but I don't think it will be the decisive
thing, but it think it will be very important and it might sew it
up for somebody."
   One of the issues propelling the Buchanan campaign is
immigration. Mr Buchanan is vehemently opposed to illegal
immigration and has even proposed construction of a high barrier
to separate the United States and Mexico in areas where illegal
crossings are frequent. California, being a border state, has
felt the effects of illegal immigration and in 1994, an
overwhelming majority of voters supported a referendum that would
have denied state social services for undocumented aliens. That
law was later struck down in large part by federal courts, but it
remains a major issue in California.
   Could this be Pat Buchanan's opportunity here? Mr. Skelton
thinks there could be an even better opportunity for Mr. Buchanan
in the anxiety created by the recent recession in California:
   "I think that all of these candidates are against illegal
immigration. They all want to do something about it. So, how much
he gets out of that, I am not sure. More likely, he would prosper
by making a referendum on Wall Street and corporate America, all
the lay offs. California lost 700,000 jobs during the recession
and it only gained back about half that many, so there is a lot
of unhappiness here with big corporations and if he can tap into
that in this state, he might do pretty well."
   Part of Pat Buchanan's appeal in other states has come from
his populist rhetoric, condemning international trade deals that
he says have taken jobs from working class people in the United
States. But Hugh Hewitt says the protectionist, isolationist
ideas expressed by Mr. Buchanan will not play well in traditional
conservative California bastions like Orange County, where the
primary is likely to be decided:
   "It will come down to Orange County, California, where 200,000
Republican primary voters will have a decisive influence on who
wins the Republican primary. This is not Pat Buchanan territory,
though it is a very conservative county, because it is
internationalist in outlook. It is vigorous in believing that
America has a special role abroad. It supported George Bush
overwhelmingly. It supported Ronald Reagan overwhelmingly. They
are free traders."
   Mr Hewitt is not alone in thinking that economic issues will
play a big role in both the California Republican primary and in
the election in November. California's unemployment rate remains
two percentage points higher than the national average and the
state has been especially hard hit by federal government cutbacks
in defense projects contracted to California companies. While
some voters blame President Clinton for not doing more to help
the state, others credit him with having kept some military bases
open and with responding quickly with aid after the 1994
earthquake that shook the Los Angeles area.
   Analysts agree that the Republican challenge to President
Clinton in California may depend on how well the party's eventual
nominee can do in shaping a message that appeals to economic
anxieties and lingering problems that have taken some of the
shine off the golden state's self-image.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   MURDOCH ON FUTURE OF NEWS CORP. AND PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

   ANDREW BAIRD
   WASHINGTON

   Media magnate Rupert Murdoch discussed the future of News
Corporation, his holding company, and waded into the national
presidential campaign by offering free airtime to the major
candidates.
   At a news conference Monday in Washington, Rupert Murdoch,
chairman and chief executive officer of the media giant, News
Corporation, said that special interest political contributions
and misleading political advertising campaigns are distorting the
nation's electoral process. Mr. Murdoch noted that to run an
average campaign for a U.S. Senate seat, a candidate has to raise
four thousand dollars each working day for six years. Mr. Murdoch
said he wants to help reverse this trend. As a first step, he
said he would offer each legitimate presidential candidates one
hour of prime time on his Fox Television Network. Their
presentations would take place November fourth, the night before
national elections:
   "We will ask those leading candidates to prepare one minute
video position statements on each of ten important issues as
defined by the American people, not by the punidts or panels of
alleged experts. Fox will provide news event coverage of these
one minute statements in special breaks in our popular prime time
programming during the three or four weeks before the election."
   Mr. Murdoch said that in conjunction with other networks, Fox
will offer one hour and half-hour news coverage of campaign
statements by presidential candidates.
   Mr. Murdoch also challenged broadcasters to be more
responsible in helping parents monitor what their children
watched. He said that some programming today was tawdry, and he
included shows on his own network, such as "Studs," which Mr.
Murdoch personally cancelled. Still, he said that he and other
broadcasters had a negative reaction to new technology which
would allow governments down to the local level to electronically
censor what they considered objectionable programming.
   As far as the future of News Corporation, Mr. Murdoch said he
would launch a 24-hour all-news network soon to compete with ted
Turner's Cable-News Network, or CNN, and another one planned by
Cap Cities/ABC.
   -------------
   
   -------------
   THE FIRST SESSION OF CONGRESS 1789

   On March 4, 1789, the first 1congress under the United States
constitution convened in New York City for its first session. The
national legislature spent many of its early days organizing
committees and establishing leadership in the House of
Representatives and the senate. The first bill passed by the
Congress described how oaths of office were to be administered.
Members debated trade matters and passed a measure for taxing
imports. The Congress also spent weeks on bills creating the
departments of foreign affairs, war and treasury. Congress also
approved the ceremonies planned for the inauguration of George
Washington as the first president of the United States.

   FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT'S FIRST INAUGURATION 1933

   On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as the
thirty-second president of the United States. The new president
used his inaugural speech to address the public fear caused by
the great depression. As he spoke, 13 million Americans, the head
of one of every four households, were jobless in the economic
catastrophe. Scores of banks had failed, factories closed and
farmers had been evicted from their land. Sensing the despair of
the people, Mr. Roosevelt sought to rally them and restore their
confidence:
   "Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to
fear, is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror
which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
   Franklin Roosevelt said his greatest task as president would
be to put people back to work.


   THE NATIONAL ANTHEM 1931

   On March 3, 1931, president Herbert Hoover signed a
proclamation making "The Star Spangled Banner" the national
anthem of the United States. The song had been popular for many
decades before achieving its status as America's official anthem.
The words were written as a poem by Francis Scott key after he
witnessed a British naval bombardment of fort McHenry at
Baltimore, Maryland in the War of 1812. Mr. Key was inspired by
the sight of the 15 star U.S. flag that flew over the fort
guarding Baltimore's inner harbor the morning after the ferocious
attack. The sight of the banner told the British fleet that the
fort would not surrender and was ready to fight on. The fleet
sailed away ending its threat to Baltimore.
   The words of the poem were later combined with the music of a
British song that was popular in the United States. The flag that
inspired Francis Scott Key is on display at the Smithsonian
Institution's Museum of American History in Washington, D.C.


   IKE WILL RUN FOR A SECOND TERM 1956

   On February 29, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower announced
that he would seek the Republican Party's nomination for
reelection. The expectation that the popular president would run
for a second term was shaken in September, 1955 when he suffered
a heart attack at the age of 65. His recovery was slow, but by
February he felt well enough to declare his candidacy.
   He announced his decision in a nation-wide broadcast speech:
   "I have decided that if the Republican Party chooses to
renominate me, I shall accept that nomination. Thereafter, if the
people of this country should elect me, I shall continue to serve
them in the office I now hold. I have concluded that I should
permit the American people to have the opportunity to register
their decision in this matter."
   President Eisenhower said his doctors had agreed that he was
strong enough to carry out his duties as a candidate and chief
executive. He emphasized that he felt as healthy as he had before
the illness:
   "As of this moment there is not the slightest doubt that I can
now perform as well as I ever have, all of the important duties
of the presidency."
   He easily defeated his Democratic opponent Adlai Stevenson in
the November, 1956 election. Less than one year later President
Eisenhower suffered a mild stroke, but recovered to serve out the
remainder of his term. Mr. Eisenhower remained active in politics
after his retirement until 1965, when he suffered a serious heart
attack. The illness left him an invalid at his beloved farm near
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania until he died in 1969.


   FIRST REPUBLICAN PARTY MEETING 1854

   On February 28, 1854, representatives of local and regional
political parties met in the small mid-western town of Ripon
(prn: Rip on), Wisconsin and founded the Republican Party. The
politics of the United States were in a confused state over
slavery. The abolitionists, Democrats and northern Whigs, who
attended the meeting had many political differences. However,
they were united in their fierce opposition to slavery and the
extension of slavery into the new western territories. The men
meeting at Ripon agreed to their new political alignment and
adopted the name "Republican" to identify their principles and
their new party. Their first successful national candidate was
Abraham Lincoln who was elected president in 1860.


   TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT RATIFIED 1951

   On February 27, 1951, the constitutional amendment limiting
presidents of the United States to two terms in office was
ratified. Until Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, was elected to
a third term in 1940, two-term U.S. presidents had followed
George Washington's example of not seeking a third term.
President Roosevelt was elected to a precedent-shattering fourth
term in 1944. In 1947, about two years after President
Roosevelt's death, the Republican-controlled Congress approved
the proposed twenty-second amendment and sent it to the states.
The constitutional requirement for ratification by three-quarters
of the states was achieved when the legislature of Minnesota
voted to approve the measure on February 27, 1951.

   =========================

   FREE OFFER FROM PUBLISHER

          "CLIP" NEWS SERVICE

          INEWS DAILY IS NOW AVAILABLE THROUGH E-MAIL

          FREE TRIAL

          LOW COST ROYALTY FREE REPRODUCTION RIGHTS AVAILABLE

   International News E-Wire Service (INEWS) is an English
language daily, covering news of the world.  INEWS provides
up-to-date and accurate world news.  It also includes many
features and interviews covering such topics as current events,
politics, economics, science, medicine, history, technology,
agriculture, religion, and music.

   Low cost republication rights are available allowing articles
to be used on BBSs, in newsletters, advertising, LANs, weeklies,
community newspapers, school newspapers, brochures, media kits,
presentations, church bulletins, and more.

   Every day, INEWS gathers reports filed by correspondents
stationed at 26 news bureaus throughout the world.  INEWS relates
first-hand coverage of stories from news bureaus in Abidjan,
Bangkok, Beijing, Berlin, Bonn, Cairo, Chicago, Geneva, Hong
Kong, Islamabad, Jerusalem, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles,
Miami, Moscow, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, Paris, Prague, Rio
de Janeiro, San Jose, Tokyo, Vienna, and Washington, D.C.

   Daily INEWS service is available for less than $4.00 a month.

   Delivered through E-mail in one of two versions, plain text or
a DOS/VGA version.  The DOS/VGA version is sent either through
E-mail, encoded, or through file transfer on America Online,
Compuserve, or Prodigy.

   A free two week trial can be received by sending E-mail
containing E-mail address, name and address to:

   INTERNET: INEWS@AOL.COM 
   AOL: INEWS
   COMPUSERVE: 76725,3622
   --------------
   ***END OF FILE***