Bush

WASHINGTON — Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton swept the Southern states in Super Tuesday’s Democratic presidential voting, including delegate-rich Texas and Florida, re-establishing himself as the front-runner for his party’s nomination.

Former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, Clinton’s principal rival, had his chief success in his home state, which he won easily as expected. He also won the Rhode Island primary and the caucuses in Delaware.

But Tsongas did no better than second in the Southern states, including Florida, where he had made his biggest commitment of time and resources and which was generally viewed as the most significant test of the day for him and Clinton. In addition to Florida and Texas, Clinton came in first in the primaries in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Louisiana, and he won the caucuses in Missouri.

The victories Tuesday brought Clinton 418 delegates, contrasted with 208 for Tsongas and 23 for former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. Clinton started the race with 275 delegates, twice what Tsongas had. The eventual nominee will need a minimum of 2,145 delegates.

“I must say, it is only tonight that I fully understand why they call this Super Tuesday,” Clinton told cheering supporters in Chicago, where he arrived to launch his drive for primaries next Tuesday in Illinois and Michigan. “From Florida to Texas and all states in between, people opened their hearts to Hillary (his wife) and to me.”

For his part, Tsongas put a brave face on the results. “We’re on our way to the White House,” he said at a victory rally in his hometown of Lowell, Mass. He cited a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday that showed him beating President Bush by 5 percentage points in a trial heat, 3 points more than Clinton’s margin over Bush.

Brown had his best showings Tuesday in Massachusetts, Mississippi and Oklahoma, running second in those states.

“This crusade rolls forward,” Brown declared Tuesday night at a United Auto Workers union hall in Romulus, Mich., a suburb of Detroit. “Hey, governing elite, watch out.

“I think I’m a lot closer to the heart and soul of this party” than the other candidates, he claimed. “I’ve got as good a chance as anybody. But this is a campaign that builds week by week. We’ve already moved from the margin to the center.

“We’re getting Tom Harkin’s vote now.” Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin’s role in the campaign as the spokesman for traditional Democratic liberalism ended this week when he dropped out of the race.

All told, 783 delegates–more than one-third the total required for nomination–were at stake in contests waged in 11 states, from Hawaii to Rhode Island. But seven of them were in Dixie or on its borders, which gave the day its special cast and gave Clinton an advantage he fully exploited.

A television network exit poll showed Clinton taking 68% of the vote among native-born Southerners, contrasted with 19% for Tsongas and 8% for Brown.

Once again, as in the Georgia and South Carolina primaries last week, blacks made a big contribution to Clinton’s victory. He got about 80% of the black vote across the South, according to network exit polls, contrasted with 59% of the white vote.

A Times exit poll in Florida showed that voters picked change, compassion and agreement on the issues as the main reasons that influenced their choice for President. Clinton won the support of the first two of these groups soundly and split the third evenly with Tsongas.

Tsongas appeared to have been hurt by Clinton’s charges that he was prepared to tamper with cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries. About one-fourth of those interviewed in The Times poll said that issue had influenced them, and three-fifths of that group backed Clinton.

Even on this day of triumph, concern over Clinton’s controversial draft status during the Vietnam War cast a shadow. Of Southern Democratic voters polled by the networks, 20% said this issue made them think less favorably of Clinton, although one-third of these voted for him anyway.

By contrast, in Florida, the Times poll showed that Tsongas took the votes of those interested in a candidate whose ethics they do not doubt, whom they believe they can trust, who has convictions and who has values like their own.

These answers appeared to reflect not only their confidence in Tsongas, but also their misgivings about Clinton because of the draft controversy and earlier allegations that he had been unfaithful to his wife. Those charges had damaged his campaign in New Hampshire, when polls had him far in front of the field.

Clinton attempted to address this problem Tuesday night in his victory speech in Chicago.

“The people of the South heard the worst about me but they saw the best,” he said. “They know that the true measure of character in politics can never be perfection, because, if it were, no one could pass. The true measure is genuine commitment that lasts day in and day out, through failures and disappointment and defeat and setback.”

Tsongas, who was outspent and who many thought was outmaneuvered in the day’s battle, sounded a defiant note.

“There are those who believe the American people are not intelligent, that you can be Santa Claus, that you can pander and give middle-class tax cuts,” he said, sounding one of his favorite themes at his Lowell rally. “I’m going to tell you something, Bill Clinton, you’re not going to pander your way into the White House as long as I’m around.”

Brown also sounded as if he had just begun to fight.

“I will tell you that I have a better chance than my two opponents” of getting the nomination, he told ABC News interviewer Peter Jennings. “Both of them are fatally flawed. They don’t represent the majority of who the Democratic Party is. I do. That’s my background.

“It’s hard to get the message out. But as we do, the crowds are going now from the hundreds to the thousands.”

In the frantic days of campaigning that preceded Tuesday’s day of decision, the contrasting objectives of the three Democratic contenders reflected the differences in their prospects and resources.

For Clinton, the balloting presented the opportunity to take a giant step forward in the delegate race and to gain momentum for next week’s critical contests in Illinois and Michigan.

“It’s always been the case that we had more money and more organization than anybody else,” Craig Smith, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, said on the eve of the balloting. “Our strategy has been to go in and win as many states as we can and roll up a big delegate margin.”

That is exactly what Clinton did Tuesday throughout the South.

Perhaps just as important as these tangible assets in helping Clinton was the region’s demography. It created an environment more receptive to Clinton’s economic message–centered on his call for a small tax cut for middle-class families–than Tsongas’ doctrine of relying mainly on tax incentives for business to generate growth.

“The clarity of choice between Clinton and Tsongas on economic policy works to our advantage in the South more than in states like Maryland and New Hampshire,” where Tsongas won, said David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “There are more middle-income voters and more working families.”

Under these circumstances, the Super Tuesday confrontation represented mainly an exercise in damage control for Tsongas. Seeking to minimize the impact of defeat, the candidate and his managers conceded the outcome well in advance.

They set their goal as finishing a “strong second” everywhere, particularly in Florida, Super Tuesday’s most competitive battleground. And they pointed to what they asserted would be more positive results elsewhere in the country next week.

“Once Super Tuesday is over, he (Clinton) has to go into the rest of the country, and we’ve done better there,” said Tsongas campaign manager Dennis Kanin, citing his candidate’s victories in New Hampshire and Maryland.

As for Brown, the self-styled candidate of protest, the balloting offered a chance to enhance the credibility his candidacy gained with victories in Colorado and Nevada. Waging his guerrilla style of political warfare from Dixie to New England, Brown sometimes seemed mainly a threat to Tsongas’ support, particularly when he appealed for the vote of environmentalists by demanding a ban on ozone-threatening products.

But Brown also sought to make inroads in Clinton’s backing among minorities, telling a rally of Latinos in El Paso, “You know you’re being ripped off, lied to, shined on.”

Here is a brief look at how the contest took shape in the biggest battlegrounds:

FLORIDA: 148 delegates.

Tsongas was drawn into making his biggest Super Tuesday commitment of time and resources here mainly because of demographics–the presence of more expatriate Northerners, more suburbanites and more upper-income voters than anywhere else in the South. Those characteristics have defined Tsongas voters in past primaries.

Recent political history also seemed encouraging. In the last two Democratic presidential campaigns, Florida has been won by non-Southern candidates who, like Tsongas, won the New Hampshire primary–former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart in 1984 and former Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis in 1988.

But as Tsongas strategists soon realized, circumstances were more favorable for Hart–who was running against another non-Southerner, former Vice President Walter F. Mondale–and for Dukakis–who had financial and organizational assets that in the 1992 contest are possessed by Clinton.

Clinton’s operation had daily polling to guide it. By contrast, conceded Rob Schroth, Tsongas’ state coordinator, “The only way I can find out what is going on is by talking to voters, to reporters and to the Clinton people.”

More important, Clinton strategists contend, Tsongas hurt his own cause. Instead of concentrating solely on his theme of economic revival, they point out, he spent much of the past few days attacking Clinton, calling the Arkansas governor “cynical and unprincipled.” He also was forced to deal with Clinton’s attacks on him for favoring a gasoline tax, for allegedly being insufficiently supportive of Israel and for supposedly being willing to tamper with Social Security cost-of-living allowances.

“He got off his message for three days and it hurt him,” said Jeff Eller, Clinton’s state coordinator. Kanin concedes that Tsongas’ shift in emphasis may have undercut his message but asserts that his candidate had no choice but to hit back at Clinton. “What Clinton was doing was attacking him all over Florida on whatever issue appealed most in that area,” Kanin said.

TEXAS: 196 delegates.

Clinton helped himself by coming to Texas early and often, as well as by capitalizing on friendships in the state that go back more than 20 years. “He’s paid a lot of attention to this state,” said George Christian, an Austin political consultant and onetime aide to former President Lyndon B. Johnson. “He’s here every time you turn around.”

Because of that, Clinton has lined up an impressive list of endorsements from elected and party officials and from leaders of key interest groups.

“He’s got the who’s who of the Mexican community and the who’s who of the black community on his side,” said George Shipley, a Democratic consultant who guided Texas Gov. Ann Richard’s campaign to victory in 1990.

One influential group, the Texas Mexican-American Democrats, not only endorsed Clinton, but also mailed out 200,000 letters to Mexican-American voters urging them to cast their ballots for the Arkansas governor.

Tsongas campaigned here for only two days, and his late-starting organization seemed to have relied at least as much on misgivings about Clinton as on Tsongas’ own virtues to get support.

Clinton “has impressive financial assets, but he has heavy personal liabilities,” said Texas Railroad Commissioner Robert Kreuger, Tsongas’ state chairman.

The personal contrast with Clinton did appear to help Tsongas win some votes. After hearing Tsongas speak at a rally at the Alamo last week, Sylvia Jiminez, a San Antonio accountant, praised his economic message but said pointedly, “Bill Clinton is too much glitz.”

SOUTHERN PRIMARIES: Clinton was helped by a big edge in endorsements from prominent Democrats in the rest of the South. Tennessee, with 68 delegates, was the only state in which Tsongas campaigned, aside from Texas and Florida. Only Brown made a significant attempt to compete in Mississippi, with 39 delegates. In Oklahoma, with 45 delegates, Tsongas failed to get on the ballot because of a technical slip-up by his staff, leaving second place to Brown.

Staff writers Cathleen Decker, David Lauter, J. Michael Kennedy and Marilyn Yaquinto contributed to this story.

RELATED STORIES, PICTURES: A12-14

Super Tuesday Vote

Here are the top finishers in Super Tuesday’s key states:

DEMOCRATS Clinton Tsongas Brown % of vote in 1. Massachusetts (primary) 11 67 14 83 2. Rhode Island (primary) 21 53 19 100 3. Delaware (caucus) 21 30 19 100 4. Florida (primary) 51 34 12 92 5. Tennessee (primary) 67 19 8 99 6. Mississippi (primary) 73 8 10 94 7. Louisiana (primary) 69 11 7 99 8. Missouri (caucus) 61 6 4 90 9. Oklahoma (primary) 70 — 17 99 10. Texas (primary) 66 19 8 78 11. Hawaii (caucus) — — — —

GOP Bush Buchanan Duke % of vote in 1. Massachusetts (primary) 66 28 2 90 2. Rhode Island (primary) 63 32 2 100 3. Delaware (caucus) — — — — 4. Florida (primary) 69 31 — 92 5. Tennessee (primary) 73 22 3 99 6. Mississippi (primary) 72 17 11 93 7. Louisiana (primary) 62 27 9 95 8. Missouri (caucus) — — — — 9. Oklahoma (primary) 70 27 3 99 10. Texas (primary) 70 24 3 76 11. Hawaii (caucus) — — — —

All numbers are percentages. Complete results, A12

Super Tuesday Roundup

Here are the latest results from Tuesday’s presidential contests. PRIMARIES Texas DEMOCRATS 78% of precincts reporting

Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 819,554 66 97 Paul E. Tsongas 230,607 19 28 Jerry Brown 93,657 8 2 REPUBLICANS 76% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 425,588 70 121 Patrick Buchanan 143,829 24 0 David Duke 15,723 3 0 Uncommitted 18,259 3 0 Florida DEMOCRATS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 536,088 51 87 Paul E. Tsongas 360,339 34 58 Jerry Brown 131,267 12 3 REPUBLICANS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 554,173 69 97 Patrick Buchanan 254,150 31 0 Massachusetts DEMOCRATS 83% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 443,150 67 88 Jerry Brown 94,483 14 6 Bill Clinton 70,480 11 0 Uncommitted 10,114 2 0 REPUBLICANS 87% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 149,247 66 26 Patrick Buchanan 63,124 28 11 David Duke 4,785 2 0 Uncommitted 8,618 4 1 Tennessee DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 211,488 67 56 Paul E. Tsongas 60,662 19 12 Jerry Brown 25,415 8 0 Uncommitted 12,217 4 0 REPUBLICANS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 177,173 73 23 Patrick Buchanan 54,328 22 10 David Duke 7,662 3 0 Uncommitted 5,043 2 0 Louisiana DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 259,731 69 59 Paul E. Tsongas 41,790 11 1 Jerry Brown 24,925 7 0 REPUBLICANS 94% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 75,346 62 26 Patrick Buchanan 32,484 27 5 David Duke 10,438 9 1 Oklahoma DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 288,031 70 38 Jerry Brown 68,432 17 7 REPUBLICANS 98% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 147,426 70 34 Patrick Buchanan 56,234 27 0 David Duke 5,474 3 0 Mississippi DEMOCRATS 94% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 138,777 73 39 Jerry Brown 18,222 10 0 Paul E. Tsongas 15,093 8 0 Uncommitted 11,642 6 0 REPUBLICANS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 104,065 72 33 Patrick Buchanan 24,320 17 0 David Duke 15,516 11 0 Rhode Island DEMOCRATS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 26,875 53 13 Bill Clinton 10,729 21 6 Jerry Brown 9,519 19 3 Uncommitted 689 1 0 REPUBLICANS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 9,911 63 10 Patrick Buchanan 5,012 32 5 David Duke 327 2 0 Uncommitted 440 3 0 CAUCUSES Missouri DEMOCRATS 90% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 306 61 34 Paul E. Tsongas 30 6 2 Jerry Brown 20 4 0 Uncommitted 143 29 30 Delaware DEMOCRATS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 48 30 5 Bill Clinton 33 21 3 Jerry Brown 31 19 2 Uncommitted 47 30 4 Hawaii DEMOCRATS 0% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton xxx xx x Paul E. Tsongas xxx xx x Jerry Brown xxx xx x Uncommitted xxx xx x

* Republican caucuses in Missouri, Delaware and Hawaii will be held in the coming months.

Some victims of disgraced undertaker Robert Bush have not been refunded for fake funeral plans he sold them, a court has heard.

The 48-year-old defrauded 172 people over 11 years to the tune of £562,000, Hull Crown Court was told.

He previously admitted 67 offences in relation to his business, Legacy Independent Funeral Directors in Hull, including failing to bury and cremate people, theft from 12 charities, fraudulent trading in funeral plans, and fraud.

On the fourth day of his sentencing hearing, one woman said her parents, who paid £2,649 each for funeral plans, were not alive “to see the justice they deserved”. Another said she had not been refunded £5,000 for two policies.

This story contains details some might find distressing.

Wiping her eyes with a tissue, Maxine Hill told Mr Justice Hilliard the bank refused to refund the money fraudulently taken by Bush, whom Hill knew personally.

Bush visited both her parents, Margaret and John, in their own home and issued a handwritten receipt to her mother who paid him in cash.

The bank initially refunded the amount paid by Hill’s father but 90 days later, the bank took the money back saying “there was no evidence that he hadn’t received a product”, the court heard.

Both have since died – Margaret in May 2024 and John in June 2025.

Eight years ago, during a campaign for Texas attorney general, Justin Nelson ran television advertisements with security camera footage of Ken Paxton pocketing an expensive pen that didn’t belong to him.

Four years ago, George P. Bush went after Paxton by putting up billboards that said “he’s a crook” next to his mugshot from when he was charged with securities fraud.

And this year, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said “judgment day is coming” as he tried to fend off a Republican primary challenge from Paxton.

All of them lost. Now the question is whether James Talarico, who topped Rep. Jasmine Crockett in an expensive and fiercely contested Democratic primary, will have any more luck as he faces off against Paxton in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate races.

“The guy’s ability to take shots and just keep moving on and stay in elected office is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my career, in 25 years of running campaigns,” said Ash Wright, who worked as a senior adviser to Bush.

Paxton never has been convicted and he’s survived by championing conservative legal battles over immigration, abortion and transgender issues in a Republican-dominated state. Much like President Trump, he’s long portrayed himself as the victim of political persecution.

Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico speaks at a rally in Houston in May.

(Danielle Villasana / Getty Images)

Former Paxton challengers and a half-dozen campaign strategists who worked against him warned that Texans may tune out any attempt to revive scandals that they’ve heard about for years, especially when rigid partisanship has convinced voters to be extraordinarily forgiving of candidates’ trespasses.

However, Talarico’s team has studied the previous races and is attempting its own version of the playbook by trying to paint Paxton as part of a broader culture of corruption that has failed to improve people’s lives.

Paxton’s campaign suggested Talarico’s claims were aimed at distracting voters from a record of “out-of-touch views.”

“Every time a fighter, like President Donald Trump and now Ken Paxton, stands up to the permanent political class, even after they are completely acquitted of wrongdoing, people like James Talarico continue pushing the same accusations and claiming corruption,” Paxton campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy said.

Paxton won first reelection despite indictment

Paxton was first elected as Texas attorney general in 2014, and Nelson ran against him in 2018. A Democratic lawyer from Austin, Nelson made Paxton’s indictment on charges of securities fraud central to his campaign, and poked fun at him for picking up another lawyer’s $1,000 pen after finding it at a courthouse security checkpoint.

“Vote Justin Nelson for Texas attorney general,” the narrator said. “He will fight on behalf of all Texans. And he won’t steal your pen.”

Nelson argued that his approach was effective, reflected in Paxton’s narrow margin of 3.6 percentage points in a year when Republican Greg Abbott was reelected as Texas governor by more than 13 percentage points. Nelson’s campaign spent roughly $6.5 million, about half of what Paxton’s campaign spent.

“My message was working,” Nelson said. “I just needed to go louder and longer.”

In 2022, Paxton faced a Republican primary challenge from George P. Bush, the Texas land commissioner and the grandson and nephew of two former presidents from the state.

The securities fraud case was ongoing, and Paxton also was under federal investigation over accusations that he abused his position to benefit an Austin real estate developer, took bribes and retaliated against whistleblower employees.

Paxton responded by portraying himself as a Trump-era Republican and Bush as the heir to a privileged political legacy.

Pro-Paxton organizations spent more than $20 million, about twice as much as Bush and his allies. The race went to a runoff, in which Paxton defeated Bush by 34 percentage points.

Paxton ran against Rochelle Garza, a Democratic civil rights lawyer from Brownsville, in the general election. She said her campaign had a 300-page opposition research file on Paxton but it was difficult to figure out how to approach his past because voters had heard about it for years.

“The amount of potential hits on Paxton can make message discipline challenging,” Garza said.

Paxton ran as the leading legal opponent of President Biden, promoting a string of lawsuits against Biden’s Democratic administration on immigration, abortion and gender policy.

Overwhelmingly outspent, Garza lost by roughly 10 percentage points.

Some supporters see Paxton as a ‘flawed’ fighter

There was more trouble ahead for Paxton.

He split with his wife, who later filed for divorce “on biblical grounds.” He also was impeached by the Texas House, although the Senate acquitted him in 2023 and allowed him to remain in office. The securities fraud case ended in 2024, and Paxton was directed to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution.

Throughout the years, he’s maintained strong support from Republican voters like David and Nancy Lapp, a retired couple from the small town of Wolfforth. They described him as a conservative warrior who has been a victim of persecution.

“He’s had his share of scandals, and almost all of them have, so it’s not necessarily disqualifying anymore,” said David Lapp, 76. “He’s a flawed person, no doubt about it, but he fights for traditional American ideals.”

He added that “nowadays, as long as you’re not in jail, they’ll elect you.”

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporters Jesse Bedayn in Del Rio, Texas, and Marc Levy in Wolfforth, Texas, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Bush, formally abandoning the central pledge of his 1988 presidential campaign, declared Tuesday that preserving a healthy economy will require new taxes.

“It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require” a series of measures including “tax revenue increases” as well as spending cuts, Bush said in a written statement issued after a breakfast meeting with congressional leaders of both parties.

He specifically mentioned the possibility of trimming “entitlement and mandatory” spending programs, a reference to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other benefit programs. He did not specify the type of tax increase he had in mind.

With his statement, Bush abandoned his campaign pledge–”Read my lips, no new taxes”–and opened the door to a “grand compromise” with Congress that could narrow or even close the federal deficit. Richard G. Darman, Bush’s budget director, has been advocating such a compromise almost since the day Bush took office.

At the same time, however, Bush may have sparked a full-scale revolt among conservatives in his party, many of whom believe that higher taxes are far worse for the country than continued deficits. He may also have given up what many Republican strategists see as the party’s most important issue–low taxes.

Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garaden Grove) said the President’s announcement that he would consider raising tax revenues set off a “firestorm” among conservative Republicans.

“I signed a letter today . . . that said, ‘Mr. President, we hope that (tax) rates are untouchable, that they are absolutely radioactive.’ ”

Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress, said, “The Democrat game plan all along in this Congress has been to break George Bush of his promise not to raise taxes and so to lay the foundation of a campaign against him by saying he broke his promise and he can’t be trusted.

“And frankly, I’d disappointed in Mr. Bush. I thought he was smarter than falling for that.”

Democratic leaders, by contrast, welcomed Bush’s new stance, which was prepared, word by word, during the breakfast meeting.

Administration and congressional negotiators, who have been meeting since May 9 to try to craft a deficit-reduction package acceptable to all parties, have discussed a host of potential tax increases.

Some proposals, such as increased “user fees” and hikes in tobacco and alcohol taxes, might be relatively easy for Bush to embrace. The Administration has already proposed roughly $20 billion in new user fees and other minor revenue increases.

But Tuesday’s statement was made necessary because Democratic leaders said that package was unacceptable. And while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said it was up to the negotiators to decide what to do next, he pointedly refused to rule out broader tax increases.

Republicans, however, may find it difficult to accept Democratic demands to increase income taxes for the wealthiest Americans. “I can’t see Democrats agreeing unless there are (income tax) rate changes that ensure that (the final package) is not unfair to the poor and middle class,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.).

Budget negotiators hope to work out a final package before Congress leaves Washington for its August recess.

Before Tuesday’s developments, said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), the budget talks “were stalemated, going nowhere. The President broke an impasse.”

Bush himself told reporters at the White House Rose Garden Tuesday afternoon: “It is essential that these talks get moving and get moving faster. I want to see this economy grow. I want jobs. I want to see the deficit down.”

Democratic leaders had insisted when the talks began that they would not get involved in specific negotiations unless Bush publicly admitted that a tax increase would be needed.

At the time, the White House insisted that all issues were “on the table” and that Bush would impose “no preconditions” on the talks. But Democrats had insisted on a more explicit statement.

After Bush gave them what they had sought, Democratic leaders appeared solemn and reserved as they struggled to avoid seeming to take political advantage of Bush’s retreat.

“We hope this is not going to be the subject of a political campaign effort,” said House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) “Someone who wants to complain about taxes being raised will have to complain against both parties.”

When the negotiations began, Democrats feared that Republicans would maneuver them into a corner–forcing them to call for a tax increase and then campaigning against them as “tax-and-spend” liberals.

Many Republican candidates for the Senate this fall already have been doing just that, much as Bush had done in 1988. In that year, Bush’s favorite line–”Read my lips, no new taxes”–formed the centerpiece of his standard stump speech.

Tuesday’s statement not only abandoned that pledge but also gave up on a central tenet of the Republican political philosophy for the past decade–that the deficit is caused by too much spending, not by too little revenue.

Fitzwater, explaining Bush’s decision, said that closing the deficit without new taxes would require spending cuts so large that they “would be unacceptable to all parties.”

The White House estimates that the federal deficit will be roughly $160 billion in fiscal 1991, which begins on Oct. 1. The Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction law would require about $100 billion in across-the-board spending cuts unless the President and Congress agree on a new budget plan.

To mollify conservatives, Bush aides spent much of the day circulating word that the White House was not agreeing to anything beyond the approximately $20 billion in new user fees and related taxes that Bush has already advocated.

“I’m not changing my mind at all” on taxes, Bush insisted during a 45-minute session with 15 Latino reporters from around the country.

Vice President Dan Quayle echoed the theme. “It should not be viewed as a change of policy,” he said in an interview in Los Angeles, where he was raising money for GOP candidates. “This is a deficit reduction summit, not a tax increase summit.”

Asked if he would now admit that Bush was breaking his campaign pledge against new taxes, Fitzwater responded with a laugh: “Are you crazy? . . . Everything we said was true then, and it’s true now. We feel he said the right thing then; he’s saying the right thing now.”

Democratic leaders reacted with some anger to the White House damage control efforts.

“The President’s statement is clear and unambiguous,” said Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.). “He said that it is clear to him that tax increases are required. This is a new statement by the President. Any attempt by White House officials or other Republicans to describe the statement otherwise are totally inconsistent with what occurred today.”

Even Fitzwater conceded as much as he listed a series of factors that had forced Bush to change his mind.

The most important was the weakening of the economy since Bush took office. Fitzwater noted that economic statistics continue to show interest rates higher and growth rates lower than the White House had hoped. Bush advisers and most Democratic economists hold deficits at least partly responsible, a point conservatives dispute.

Moreover, the mounting cost of the savings and loan bailout has swelled the deficit, Fitzwater said.

Not all members of Bush’s party, however, were willing to abandon their belief that new taxes are worse than continued deficits.

“Any tax rate increase now threatens recession,” Rep. C. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) said in a statement. “Just the prospect of a tax increase is like a dagger pointed at the jugular vein of the American economy.”

Within hours of Bush’s statement, 90 Republican members of Congress signed a letter to Bush declaring “we were stunned by your announcement that you would be willing to accept tax revenue increases as a part of a budget summit package.”

Rep. Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad), who represents southern Orange County, said he was “a little bit disappointed and a little bit surprised, because I think it was in a way caving in on the issue.”

“A tax increase is unacceptable,” the GOP congressmen wrote. “We will not vote for a budget package that increases tax rates for the American people.”

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), one of the authors of the Gramm-Rudman law, said that an agreement may not be worth having if it means a tax increase.

Times staff writers George Ramos and Robert W. Stewart in Washington and Cathleen Decker in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

GEORGE BUSH ON TAXES Oct. 12, 1987: “There are those who say we must balance the budget on the back of the workers–raise taxes again. . . . I am not going to raise taxes again.” Announcement of candidacy in Houston. Jan. 16, 1988: “I want to be the President who finally whips the budget into shape by holding the line on taxes.” Televised debate with five Republican rivals in Manchester, N.H. May 31, 1988: “I’m not going to propose a tax increase.” After meeting with campaign economic advisers at summer home in Kennebunkport, Me. June 14, 1988: “That’s the difference–as plain as day–between us. Tax cuts vs. tax hikes. I will not raise your taxes, period.” At Cincinnati rally, comparing his position with that of Democratic front-runner Michael S. Dukakis. June 24, 1988: “I’ve ruled them all out.” At a Cincinnati news conference, when asked if Bush included excise taxes or other “revenue enhancers” in his rejection of new taxes. July 9, 1988: “If you go to Yosemite Park with your trailer . . . you may have to pay a little more.” At Atlanta news conference, conceding that costs of some programs might rise for users but asserting that voters understood the difference between user fees and tax hikes. Aug. 18, 1988: “My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes, but I will, and the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say to them ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’ ” Acceptance speech, Republican National Convention, New Orleans. Jan. 31, 1990: “That budget brings federal spending under control. It meets the Gramm-Rudman target. It brings that deficit down further and balances the budget by 1993 with no new taxes.” State of the Union address, discussing budget he proposed to Congress. March 13, 1990: “You know my position and I have no intention of changing that position.” At White House news conference, when asked if he could promise no new taxes this year. May 24, 1990: “Things are complicated out there on this subject. . . . I’d like to do it exactly the way I propose. I’m now enough of a realist to realize that it might not be done exactly that way.” At White House news conference, when asked if he could fulfill his campaign promise. June 26, 1990: “It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require . . . tax revenue increases.” Written statement after meeting with congressional leaders. PROJECTED IMPACT OF VARIOUS TAX INCREASES

Revenue Impac Proposal Next Year Fossil Fuels Tax fuels linked to global $23 warming Social Security Raise tax on benefits to 12 high earners Energy Impose 5% tax on wide range 14 of energy sources Gasoline Raise tax to 21 cents per 12 gallon from 9 cents Stock Market 0.5% tax on stock and bond 8 transactions Cigarettes, Raise 32 cents per pack and 10 Alcohol 25 cents per ounce Income Increase top income tax 4 rate to 33% Acid Rain Tax sources of air 3 pollution Estate Tax capital gains held 2 until death

t (in billions) Proposal Five Years Fossil Fuels $163 Social Security 100 Energy 80 Gasoline 59 Stock Market 58 Cigarettes, 51 Alcohol Income 42 Acid Rain 22 Estate 10

Source: Congressional Budget Office

PERSPECTIVE ON CHANGE–White House feared that Democrats would quit budget talks and blame Bush. A15

OTHER COVERAGE: A14

Following is independent counsel Lawrence Walsh’ statement on the presidential pardon of former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and others charged in the Iran-Contra scandal:

President Bush’s pardon of Caspar Weinberger and other Iran-Contra defendants undermines the principle that no man is above the law. It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office–deliberately abusing the public trust–without consequence.

Weinberger, who faced four felony charges, deserved to be tried by a jury of citizens. Although it is the President’s prerogative to grant pardons, it is every American’s right that the criminal justice system be administered fairly, regardless of a person’s rank and connections.

The Iran-Contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up.

Weinberger’s early and deliberate decision to conceal and withhold extensive contemporaneous notes of the Iran-Contra matter radically altered the official investigations and possibly forestalled timely impeachment proceedings against President Reagan and other officials. Weinberger’s notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest-ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public. Because the notes were withheld from investigators for years, many of the leads were impossible to follow, key witnesses had purportedly forgotten what was said and done, and statutes of limitation had expired.

Weinberger’s concealment of notes is part of a disturbing pattern of deception and obstruction that permeated the highest levels of the Reagan and Bush administrations. This office was informed only within the past two weeks, on December 11, 1992, that President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his own highly relevant contemporaneous notes, despite repeated requests for such documents. The production of these notes is still ongoing and will lead to appropriate action.

In light of President Bush’s own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations.

Clearly, President Bush didn’t mean it.

Winding up a speech, Bush said America will be tough and resolute to defeat terrorists so future generations can live in peace. “And there is no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail,” the president said.

His audience at the Labor Department did not react. Bush, known to make occasional verbal gaffes, continued in a positive vein: “Failure is not a part of our vocabulary. This great nation will lead the world and we will be successful.”

Matt Brown, who starred with his family in the Discovery reality television show “Alaskan Bush People,” was found dead in the Okanogan River in Washington state, law enforcement officials said Sunday.

Brown’s body was discovered Saturday by a group of private citizens who were conducting a search, the Okanogan County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.

Brown’s brother, Bear Brown, said in a video posted Saturday on social media that fellow brother Noah had been with the search team, helped pull the body out of the river and identified him.

The official cause and manner of death is still to be determined by the coroner, the sheriff’s office said. But the Brown family believes Matt Brown died by suicide, Bear Brown said in the video.

Witnesses said they saw Matt Brown in or near the river and that he “took his own life,” Bear Brown said on social media.

“I would have never suspected he would hurt himself, honestly,” Bear Brown said in the emotional video. “He struggled for a long time.”

Bear Brown said his brother had battled with alcohol and drugs and that Matt Brown told him in their last conversation that he had “fallen off the wagon.”

The Brown family and their life in the Alaskan wilderness were the subject of the reality TV show “Alaskan Bush People,” which ran on the Discovery Channel from 2014 to 2022.