big ad

kaus files dot com logo

Pay Up, Shrum!

Litmus test flip-flop smoking gun.


Posted Tuesday, January 11, 2000

        On Meet the Press last Sunday, Gore adviser Robert Shrum* attempted manfully to deny that his candidate had ever suggested he'd make support of his policy on gays in the military a "litmus test" for nomination to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All Gore was doing, Shrum said, was restating the constitutional principle that the Chiefs are obliged to obey their commander in chief:

What he said ... was that he would insist that people appointed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff agree to support his policy as president. He never said in the New Hampshire debate that he would inquire into their personal convictions. His litmus test is a constitutional one, civilian control of the military ... I defy you to find a place in that transcript where he ever said he would inquire into someone's personal position. ... I'll bet you 10 bucks. Find him saying that he's going to examine their personal convictions.
Nice try, Bob! But the transcript of the New Hampshire debate makes it pretty damn clear that Gore was saying exactly what Shrum said he didn't say. The video clip played by MTP host Tim Russert might not have nailed the issue down (it showed Gore declaring, "I would insist before appointing anybody to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that that individual support my policy ..."). But the discussion that precedes the clip does. The whole context was Peter Jennings' question about whether Gore or Bradley would apply a "litmus test" to Joint Chiefs nominees like that occasionally applied, controversially, to Supreme Court nominees. In the context of the Supreme Court, of course, "litmus test" clearly means an inquiry into a potential nominee's personal convictions--on, say, abortion or civil rights--prior to their nomination.

        Gore said he had "rejected the notion of litmus tests on the Supreme Court by saying there are ways to find out the kind of judgment somebody has without posing specific litmus tests." He then said:

I think that it's a little different where the Joint Chiefs of Staff are concerned, because you're not interfering with an independent judicial decision. As commander in chief, a president is giving orders, in effect, or he is the superior of the officers that are reporting to the commander in chief in the chain of command. I would try to bring about the kind of change in policy, on the don't-ask, don't-tell policy, that President Harry Truman brought about after World War II in integrating the military. And I think that would require those who wanted to serve in on the position of--on the Joint Chiefs of Staff--to be in agreement with that policy. So, yes. [Emphasis added.]

        This isn't quite a smoking gun, but it's mighty close. As Gore's boss might say, it all depends on what the definition of "in agreement with" is. It was clear to me, watching the debate, that Gore meant that the nominee's personal views had to be "in agreement." For one thing, that is what "in agreement" means. It's also what the explicit analogy with the Supreme Court litmus test implies. (Otherwise Gore would have said, "You don't need a litmus test, because they have to obey the policy whatever their personal views are." Or he could have used the word "obey" or "support" instead of "be in agreement with.")

        This interpretation is reinforced by the reality of the gays-in-the-military debate: The president can't just order the Chiefs to change the "don't-ask" policy, since that policy has now been written into law by Congress, and changing it requires congressional action. That's why it would be especially important for a president to know that his Joint Chiefs nominees personally support his policy (so they'll be on his side in the battle with Congress) and not just that they will obey him (which wouldn't do the president any good).

        Bob: Don't you owe someone $10?

        * Conflict of interest disclosure: Shrum and his wife, Marylouise Oates, are friends of mine. I've eaten dinner at their house; I've even stayed there when in Washington. God, it's all too embarrassing. I think Shrum may have been a good soldier in this instance, attempting to defend an untenable position. But in a very brief phone conversation, he said he'd read the whole transcript, and he seemed sincere in sticking to his interpretation. I admit I haven't been so understanding of others, such as James Carville, who haven't fed me so many meals.

        [Note: Shrum has responded in Slate's Fray--click here.]

        New E-mail service: Sign up, using the ListBot gizmo below, and you will be notified by e-mail whenever there's a new item on [Note: this service is free. You'll be asked a couple of demographic questions; if you find them annoying just leave them unanswered.]

Join the mailing list!
Enter your email address below,
then click the 'Join List' button:
Powered by ListBot

Gore's Secret Weapon

posted 08.03.99

        Recently archived:

        Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite 'Tawdry voyeurism,' anyone?

        Cuomo Family Values Did Mario raise his son to be Hillary's Boy?

        DeParle Gets Half the Story The NYT doesn't tell us what we need to know about Milwaukee's poor.

        Et tu, TNR? Nobody's being fair to the poor House Republicans.

        Dumb and Dumber! Two NYT embarrassments in one day.

        Creeping Rodhamism! Is Bill pushing food stamps to help Hill?

        Bill Clinton Wants You on Welfare! Is this the dole administration after all?

        The Pornographer Who Didn't Bark Why wouldn't Flynt bust Newt?

        Sex, Cars, and Carville! Plus a critically-acclaimed Yent-a-Matic.

        Yes, There Are Easy Answers! The NYT and WaPo find a quick fix for affirmative action.

        Who Stole Nissan's Cojones? Jerry Hirshberg'a got a lot of ... chutzpah!

        Doesn't Anyone Want to Be Famous? The political opportunity of a lifetime.

        Wolf Cries Wolf Naomi goes "oppo" without the research.

        The Ending of the Black Underclass, Part XVIII African-American welfare receipt falls to new low.

        Righteous Centrist Bradley's un-sweeping anti-poverty plan.

        Follow-Up on the News Miramax misinforms! The New York Times caves!

        Just Buzz Me! Synergy City! Harvey Weinstein plans a TV show based on Talk.

        Is Daniel Patrick Moynihan the Devil? A review of the evidence to date.

        Rudy's N.Y. Malathiathon Plus the Yent-A-Matic!

        Harvey Scores Again! An exciting new Talk contest.

        Is It Over? Clinton's Pathetic Second Term Revealing the one Big Thing he still might accomplish.

        Maybe Bush Didn't Snort Coke -- Maybe He Dropped Acid! One solution to the Bush drug mystery.

        George Bush, Drug Pioneer? Bush's pharmacological time-line seems a little ... out of the mainstream.

        Will Tina Fire Lucinda? Talk and truth.

Copyright 2000 Mickey Kaus.

In Association with