Clinton

PORTLAND, Conn. — Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton on Tuesday pressed his charge that President Bush has mishandled the economy, using a manufacturing plant as his stage to lament the loss of blue-collar jobs and to flesh out a plan to resurrect the nation’s manufacturing base.

At the Standard-Knapp corporation here–and later at a rally outside an East Haven, Conn., restaurant–Clinton sought to place the blame squarely on the incumbent for the ebbing away of America’s once-stalwart manufacturing base.

“The percentage of our workers employed in the manufacturing sector has continued to decline,” despite productivity gains posted by many companies, Clinton told the Standard-Knapp workers, who assemble packaging machines.

He said, “Just in the last four years, we’ve lost 1.3 million manufacturing jobs.”

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed Tuesday that the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen by 1,388,000 since Bush took office in January, 1989, to 18,150,000. Total non-farm employment grew slightly over the same period, increasing 188,000 to a total of 108,517,000 as of last month, with most of the growth in government employment.

Clinton decried the lack of a coordinated national response to the manufacturing sector’s job decline.

“Unlike our competitors, this country has no national strategy, no comprehensive partnership between business and workers and education and government to create the kinds of high-wage, high-growth jobs in manufacturing that I think are critical to our future,” he said.

Clinton’s Tuesday campaign message was meant to build upon his Labor Day efforts to depict Bush as a man who has allied himself with the rich and powerful and has forgotten needy and working Americans.

As part of offering himself as an alternative, Clinton announced what he touted as a new manufacturing policy, which largely tied together proposals he has advanced throughout his presidential campaign.

One new element in the plan calls for establishment of 170 high-tech centers that would serve as incubators for new manufacturing ideas, which would then be shared with small- and medium-sized companies. The centers would be modeled after the agricultural extensions common in rural areas of the country.

Clinton said the centers would solve the “technological gaps” that plague smaller companies, as well as retrain the scientists and engineers previously employed in the dwindling defense industry.

“There are 200,000 unemployed defense workers, technicians, scientists and engineers in California alone today,” Clinton said. “And these people have all this incredible potential to add to our national wealth, but we don’t have a system for moving them from the defense sector into the non-defense sector. The extension centers will help to do this.”

Later, however, Clinton said only 25 of the centers would be “almost exclusively” dedicated to defense workers, and another 25 to the manufacturing industry. Also, it was unclear where they would be located.

In describing his plan, Clinton demonstrated the difficulty of trying to mount a campaign as a “new style” Democrat, who is focused on the technologies and jobs of the future, and still satisfy the desires of organized labor, which has come aboard his campaign vigorously and has provided a sizable portion of the crowds at many of his recent rallies.

For instance, Clinton suggested repeatedly Tuesday that the U.S. should mimic the approaches of its chief economic competitors.

“Everybody knows we’ve lost a lot of auto jobs in the last 10 years and we’ve lost a lot of steel jobs in the last 10 years,” Clinton said. “But if you look at the Germans and the Japanese . . . when they moved people out of automobiles, they moved into other manufacturing technologies with a future. When our people moved out of automobiles, they moved into the unemployment lines.”

At the same time, though, Clinton sought to show that he remains concerned about the plight of the more traditional businesses that organized labor is trying to salvage.

To that end, he scored Bush for staging a Labor Day campaign event that he suggested missed the point.

“Just yesterday, President Bush had a great photo (opportunity) walking across the bridge that connects Mackinac Island to the mainland of Michigan–a bridge that was built with steel from a mill that is closed in the last four years,” he said.

Ultimately, Clinton settled on mixing a stew of Republican and Democratic ideas for reviving the economy.

“We’ve got to get rid of regulations that don’t make sense,” said Clinton, echoing a line that has been standard in GOP rhetoric. Then he added a distinctly liberal element: “And we’ve got to permit our companies to join together . . . as long as it doesn’t affect their competitive pricing here at home.”

At the rally in East Haven, Clinton reiterated his belief that a combination of approaches is needed to solve the nation’s economic woes.

“A lot of the problems we face today don’t fall very neatly in categories of left and right and liberal and conservative and Republican and Democratic,” he said. “We are living in a post-Cold War world where we are fighting and competing for every dollar we get.”

In general, Clinton has pledged to use the U.S. tax code to benefit domestic businesses and has promised to transfer money saved in defense cutbacks to job-creating programs.

He argued Tuesday, as he has throughout the campaign, that existing tax codes propel many companies to set up operations outside the United States, stripping the nation of jobs as a consequence.

He won his only applause from the Standard-Knapp workers when he pledged to “copy our competitors” and put the heft of the government behind businesses.

“The tax system in America should work to benefit Americans without being protectionist,” Clinton said.

The Arkansas governor also promised to streamline export laws to help companies compete overseas and said he would bolster the export offices in U.S. embassies worldwide.

Overall, Clinton said, his plan would cost about $2 billion a year over five years, financed with money now spent on military research.

Today on the Trail . . .

Bill Clinton campaigns in Atlanta and Jacksonville, Fla.

President Bush campaigns in Norristown and Collegeville, Pa., and Middletown, N.J.

Vice President Dan Quayle attends a rally in San Diego and addresses a San Diego Rotary Club luncheon.

*

TELEVISION

Clinton is interviewed on WJXT’s “Florida talks to Clinton.” C-SPAN will air it live at 5 p.m. PDT.

Tennessee Sen. Al Gore is interviewed on CNN’s “Larry King Live” at 6 p.m. PDT.

WASHINGTON — Former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that they will refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify in a House committee’s investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Clintons, in a letter released on social media, slammed the House Oversight probe as “legally invalid” even as Republican lawmakers prepared contempt of Congress proceedings against them. The Clintons wrote that the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), is on the cusp of a process “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

“We will forcefully defend ourselves,” wrote the Clintons, who are Democrats. They accused Comer of allowing other former officials to provide written statements about Epstein to the committee, while selectively enforcing subpoenas against them.

Comer said he’ll begin contempt of Congress proceedings next week. It potentially starts a complicated and politically messy process that Congress has rarely reached for and could result in prosecution from the Justice Department.

“No one’s accusing the Clintons of any wrongdoing. We just have questions,” Comer told reporters after Bill Clinton did not show up for a scheduled deposition at House offices Tuesday.

He added: “Anyone would admit they spent a lot of time together.”

Clinton has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein but had a well-documented friendship with the wealthy financier throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Republicans have zeroed in on that relationship as they wrestle with demands for a full accounting of Epstein’s wrongdoing.

Epstein was convicted in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution in Florida, but served only 13 months in custody in what was considered a sweetheart plea deal that saved him a potential life sentence. In 2019, he was arrested on federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. He killed himself in a New York jail cell while awaiting trial.

“We have tried to give you the little information we have,” the Clintons wrote in the letter. “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific.”

Multiple former presidents have voluntarily testified before Congress, but none has been compelled to do so. That history was invoked by President Trump in 2022, between his first and second terms, when he faced a subpoena by the House committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, riot by a mob of his supporters at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump’s lawyers cited decades of legal precedent that they said shielded a former president from being ordered to appear before Congress. The committee ultimately withdrew its subpoena.

Comer also indicated that the Oversight Committee would not attempt to compel testimony from Trump about Epstein, saying that it could not force a sitting president to testify.

Trump, a Republican, also had a well-documented friendship with Epstein. He has said he cut off that relationship before Epstein was accused of sexual abuse.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Angered by an MSNBC correspondent’s demeaning comment about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s daughter, aides to her presidential campaign said Friday that she might pull out of a debate planned by the cable network this month in Cleveland.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, cast as “beneath contempt” an on-air comment Thursday by MSNBC’s David Shuster, who said Chelsea Clinton is “sort of being pimped out” as she intensifies her campaigning for her mother.

NBC News announced Friday afternoon that Shuster had been suspended indefinitely over the remark, which a release called “irresponsible and inappropriate.”

Shuster apologized Friday morning on MSNBC for the term he applied to Chelsea. He issued a second apology on the MSNBC show “Tucker,” where he had uttered his comment while acting as guest host.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff has been critical of what it considers a hostile attitude toward her in MSNBC’s coverage, and the Shuster incident brought matters to a head.

Clinton is seeking more debates with Sen. Barack Obama as their race for the Democratic nomination has tightened, and as part of that strategy she agreed to take part in an MSNBC forum Feb. 26.

“We’ve done a number of debates on that network,” Wolfson said. “And at this point I can’t envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network, given the comments that were made and have been made.”

NBC News, in its statement, said it was working to keep the debate alive.

“Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned,” the statement said.

Last month, another MSNBC talk show host, Chris Matthews, apologized after suggesting Clinton owed her political success to her husband’s philandering. “The reason she may be a front-runner [in the presidential race] is her husband messed around,” Matthews said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Wolfson on Friday referenced that controversy, saying, “At some point you really have to question whether or not there’s a pattern here at this particular network, where you have comments being made and apologies given,” he said. “Is this something that folks are encouraged to do or not do? I don’t know, but the [Shuster] comment was beneath contempt, and I think any fair-minded person would see it that way.”

On the “Tucker” show, Shuster said: “I apologize to the Clinton family, the Clinton campaign and all of you who were justifiably offended. As I said this morning on MSNBC, all Americans should be proud of Chelsea Clinton. And I am particularly sorry that my language diminished the regard and respect she has earned from all of us and the respect her parents have earned in how they raised her.”

NBC News, in its statement, said it “takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.”

Turning down a debate with the nomination in doubt would be a big step for Clinton, who feels such forums work in her favor, providing a chance to demonstrate her grasp of policy and to spotlight her experience. She has accepted offers to take part in four debates over the next month; Obama has agreed to take part in two, including the one in Cleveland.

—

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

matea.gold@latimes.com

—

Nicholas reported from Washington and Gold from New York.

WASHINGTON — The White House provided trips on Air Force One or presidential helicopters to 56 campaign donors and fund-raisers in 1995 and 1996, administration officials said Monday.

In addition, leading campaign fund-raisers appeared on a “must consider” list for positions in the newly elected Clinton administration in 1992, according to newly released Democratic National Committee documents. Some later became ambassadors and other high-level appointees.

The White House and the national committee provided the new information as the Justice Department and congressional committees continued their investigations into Democratic fund-raising practices and White House perquisites provided to major financial benefactors.

The national committee documents included more than 10,000 pages about controversial fund-raiser John Huang’s employment by the national committee.

Among those on the “must consider” list for appointments was Huang himself, who received a mid-level Commerce Department job in 1994 after helping raise money for Clinton in the 1992 campaign.

Major donors and fund-raisers have been given jobs and political appointments for years by both Democratic and Republican administrations, but rarely have documents spelling out the practice been publicly available.

Huang’s activities at the national committee are at the center of the inquiries, particularly allegations that overseas interests, including the Chinese government, may have sought to channel contributions to the Democrats.

The documents detail contacts between Huang and the Chinese embassy and Chinese government officials as well as new information about his contacts with certain donors whose money the Democrats have decided to return as potentially improper.

White House and Democratic officials said there was nothing wrong with the Clintons’ use of Air Force One or with recommending supporters for appointments.

“We believe there is nothing inappropriate or unusual about the president of the United States inviting guests to be on his plane on official trips,” said Lanny J. Davis, a special White House counsel.

“As long as that privilege isn’t abused, we don’t believe the American people would object to that. And we believe that these numbers suggest it was very modest as an exercise of that prerogative.”

The cost of political travel is billed directly to the campaign, the DNC or the guest. But if a guest was on an official trip or leg of a trip, the individual was not required to pay air fare.

All told, Clinton took at least 477 guests on his 103 trips aboard Air Force One and presidential helicopter Marine One between Jan. 1, 1995, and Nov. 6, 1996, according to records compiled by the White House.

The White House defined “financial supporters” of the president as those who contributed $5,000 or more to the Democrats or raised $25,000 or more for the party or the Clinton-Gore campaign in the 1996 election cycle.

Vice President Al Gore, meanwhile, took 17 such donors on his 169 trips on Air Force Two or Marine Two.

Among those who made multiple flights were Terence McAuliffe, the Clinton-Gore finance chairman and his top aide, Laura Hartigan, and three Democratic officials: Finance Chairman Marvin Rosen, Finance Director Richard Sullivan and Treasurer Scott Pastrick.

A trip aboard Air Force One is among the most highly prized perquisites offered to major donors and fund-raisers. Supporters who flew with the president said that they were given “Welcome to Air Force One” name tags and sat in the VIP section equipped with large cabin-cruiser seats and telephones.

“It’s a tremendous ego boost,” said a Democratic official who participated in several trips. “The most exciting part for these people was to fly into their city and be able to get off the plane with all the local dignitaries on the tarmac.”

The guests on Air Force One in 1995 and 1996 contributed a total of $9.2 million to Democratic candidates and party committees since 1991, when Clinton first sought the party’s presidential nomination, according to an analysis by the Campaign Study Group. Of this total, $6.7 million went to the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore committees in the two races.

Twenty-one of the Air Force One guests and their companies each donated more than $100,000. One of those was Stanley Chesley, a Cincinnati attorney. He and his law firm gave $581,450. Another was Rashid Chaudry. His company, the Raani Corp. of Bedford Park, Ill., contributed $401,819.

Three of the Air Force One guests, all major Democratic givers, also provided employment to Clinton friend Webster L. Hubbell after Hubbell’s resignation from a top Justice Department position because of improprieties in his previous law practice.

Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr is investigating whether administration officials and supporters arranged employment deals for Hubbell to dissuade him from providing Whitewater prosecutors with damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, his former law partner in Little Rock.

Those who arranged deals and rode on Air Force Once included Truman Arnold, a Texas oil executive and longtime Clinton friend; Wayne Reaud, a Beaumont, Texas, lawyer who paid Hubbell a total of $36,000 in 1994; and Bernard Rapoport, a Waco, Texas, insurance executive.

The rewarding of campaign donors with high-level political appointments is a staple of any administration. However, the Democrats had criticized previous Republican administrations for some of these practices–such as giving ambassadorships to big-dollar contributors.

The first Democratic memo about jobs for financial backers was sent to Michael Whouley, a Clinton campaign aide who was in charge of providing names to the transition team, on Dec. 21, 1992, a month before Clinton’s inauguration.

“We urge you to consider strongly the following leading national fund-raisers who are interested in serving in the White House,” the memo said. “We are pleased to sponsor these ‘must considers.’ ”

Among those named were Erskine Bowles, who obtained the post he sought as head of the Small Business Administration. He is now Clinton’s chief of staff. Also recommended was Arthur Levitt, who was proposed as a possible ambassador to Germany or a member of the National Economic Council. He became chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Those touted for ambassadorships and receiving postings, though not necessarily in their first-choice countries, were Alan Blinken in Belgium; Donald Blinken, Hungary; Clay Constantinou, Luxembourg; and Thomas Siebert, Sweden.

Huang, then an executive in Los Angeles with the Indonesian-based Lippo conglomerate, was recommended for a position of “under- or assistant secretary for international affairs” in an unspecified agency. He was ultimately appointed deputy assistant Commerce secretary for East Asia and the Pacific in 1994.

“We make no apologies for trying to get jobs for those who were helpful in trying to elect this president,” said Democratic Communications Director Amy Weiss Tobe. “It is not unusual for somebody who is helpful to end up on a list for a must consider for a top position.”

Democrats noted that more than a dozen of those on the Republicans’ major donor group known as Team 100 received ambassadorships and sub-Cabinet positions in the Bush administration.

The documents also reveal that Huang was extensively involved in Chinese organizations and participated in events at the Chinese embassy in Washington. Included were numerous business cards from representatives of Chinese groups and invitations to events. Huang also is listed as a director of the Committee of 100, a New York-based nonprofit group of Chinese-Americans who are active in public affairs.

A handwritten note that was faxed to Huang by Haipei Xue, an official with the Council on U.S.-China Affairs in Washington, reads: “What follows is an update on strategies & programs I drafted for discussion with our partners, like Boeing in this case, & with the Embassy. Although you are not directly involved in U.S.-China . . . your Committee of 100 and often yourself, I believe, will be engaged in it.”

DNC officials said that they were unable to determine whether any of Huang’s Chinese-related activities while he was employed by the party raised concerns because they did not know the context of the documents.

Times researchers Edith Stanley and D’Jamila Salem-Fitzgerald contributed to this story.

* RENO DENIES COUNSEL BID: Attorney general denies request for outside counsel on donations. A14

* SUBPOENA MIX-UP: Investigators issue subpoenas for the wrong DNC donor. A16

SANTA MONICA — Derek Shearer is in the big leagues now, but he cut his political teeth in Santa Monica.

Shearer, a top economic adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton, was a planning commissioner in Santa Monica for five years. He credits the city with teaching him about politics and about what an activist government can do.

Now busy with the Clinton campaign, Shearer can be found churning out memos, fielding press calls, lunching with Clinton supporters and doing a hundred other tasks necessary to run the campaign in California. He has been on leave since June from his position as a public policy professor at Occidental College.

The Santa Monica resident spends half his time on the road trying to get across to the electorate Clinton’s economic manifesto, which he helped craft along with Rhode Island businessman Ira Magaziner and Harvard economist Robert Reich. The booklet-length document outlines Clinton’s economic plan and is credited with helping revive the lagging Clinton campaign in June.

An old friend of Clinton, Shearer said the plan incorporates few of his own original ideas. “I don’t try to push my solutions” on the candidate, he said. Instead, he advises Clinton on a range of subjects, helping the candidate find information and expertise.

“Derek is the kind of person that thinks you should bring a lot of people together to discuss an issue,” said Manuel Pastor, an economics professor at Occidental and a fellow at the college’s International and Public Affairs Center, which Shearer directs.

But Shearer is a believer in the Clinton message.

“The core message is not that we need better tinkering with the Federal Reserve or we need to tinker a bit with this or that tax rate,” Shearer said. “It’s that there are structural problems in the economy. We need to deal with the institutions in the society, a lot of which are run down or decayed or not running very well.”

He points to SMASH, the alternative public school his children attended in Santa Monica, as an example of the country’s decaying infrastructure. Built in the 1930s, the school is “crumbling,” Shearer said.

Shearer and Clinton met in the late ‘60s when Shearer was working as a free-lance journalist in London and Clinton was on a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford. Both shared an opposition to the Vietnam War and a passionate interest in government. The two men, both 45, have remained friends since.

Shearer said that when they met Clinton was much the same as he is today–”a natural politician” and unrelentingly gregarious.

When Clinton visited Shearer’s home during the California primary, he stood out in the middle of the street and talked to neighbors, Shearer recalled.

And during an impromptu visit to the Venice beach boardwalk, Clinton took the opportunity to talk policy with roller-skaters. He attracted such a large crowd in a bookstore that he eventually had to make a quick getaway out the back door, Shearer said.

“He’s very at ease with people and always has been,” he said.

Even during the lowest points of the Clinton campaign–when charges of marital infidelity were flying–Shearer never lost faith in his chosen candidate.

And he had been there before. “I had been involved in the (Gary) Hart campaign four years before. I had always felt that Hart should not have withdrawn, that the American people want to hear about issues,” Shearer said. He felt the same way about Clinton.

Shearer has taught at UCLA, Tufts University in Massachusetts and the UC Santa Barbara. He moved to Occidental in 1981 and now directs its public policy program.

He tries to bring his zest for real world politics to the classroom, teaching about “how policy really gets made.” His students learn to deal with bureaucracies, write up policy decisions and even craft public relations brochures.

Shearer said he often invites journalists, campaign consultants and local politicians to talk to students, along with nationally known figures such as consumer advocate Ralph Nader and economist John Kenneth Galbraith.

By most accounts, Shearer is more liberal than Clinton. In fact, the Orange County Register in an Aug. 4 editorial singled out Shearer as evidence of the Clinton campaign’s leanings to the left.

But Shearer rejects the “liberal” label in favor of “progressive.”

“What being a progressive means is that you believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives,” he said.

To Shearer, the city in which he lives offers an example.

Smart planning and wise public investment have given Santa Monica its place in the sun, he said. He pointed to the Third Street Promenade–and the decision to zone it to encourage movie theaters to move to the area–as an example of good planning. The theaters attract lots of customers who patronize other businesses on the walkway, he said.

Although Santa Monica is touted by travel writers and urban planners alike as a pleasant and livable community, elections have always been contentious. Because of his experiences here, he is unfazed by the bruising presidential race.

Shearer recalled personal attacks when he ran on a reform slate in Santa Monica in 1981. When his wife, Ruth Goldway, served as mayor in the early ‘80s, she received death threats and had to have police protection, he said.

Shearer made the leap from local politics to the national scene quite some time ago. In fact, it seems as if the Yale graduate was destined for a role in government. His office at Occidental is full of photographs of himself with well-known political figures, among them Sen. Alan Cranston and, of course, Clinton. One black-and-white photo shows Shearer’s journalist father interviewing Lyndon Johnson.

Shearer served on the board of directors for the National Consumer Cooperative Bank during the Carter Administration, and in the 1970s, he was an economic adviser to Jerry Brown.

But Shearer refused to speculate about the role he would play in a Clinton administration.

“I’ve learned . . . that you don’t plan your life around the outcomes of campaigns,” he said.

ST. LOUIS — President Clinton on Friday joined the growing cultural and political war between Democrats and their critics on the right, bitterly assailing Christian broadcasters and conservative radio talk-show hosts.

In unusually angry and aggressive remarks during a radio interview, Clinton attacked the Rev. Jerry Falwell and popular radio personality Rush Limbaugh by name, saying that their brand of politics and religion feed a spreading intolerance and cynicism across America.

The tenor and heat of his remarks showed what is increasingly becoming apparent–that for those in the roiling political battle, this is less a contest between strong adversaries with some mutual respect than a holy war fueled by bitterness and personal loathing.

Clinton spoke by telephone from Air Force One as he was flying to St. Louis to inaugurate a youth service program and headline a $1,500-a-plate fund-raiser for House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).

The President said that televangelist Falwell and other spokesmen for the religious right hide behind their fervent protestations of faith while engaging in baseless personal attacks and political demagoguery.

“I do not believe that people should be criticized for their religious convictions,” Clinton said. “But neither do I believe that people can put on the mantle of religion and then justify anything they say or do.”

The President called Falwell’s Christian values questionable when he uses his church and his access to television to promote a videotape attacking Clinton’s honesty and morality.

Clinton said that the Falwell tape, which includes lurid allegations about Clinton’s sex life, his personal finances and assorted skullduggery in Arkansas, is full of “scurrilous and false charges.”

“Remember,” Clinton said, “Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple. He didn’t try to take over the job of the money-changers.”

In an interview with Cable News Network later Friday, Falwell dismissed Clinton’s criticism and invited the President to tape a personal rebuttal to the videotape for use on the “Old Time Gospel Hour,” which airs on 200 stations nationwide.

“While the President should really direct his denials and apparent anger at those making the charges, we will be happy to provide him a forum for rebutting those charges, assuming he has watched the video, knows what the charges are and addresses them specifically,” Falwell said.

Clinton’s growing frustration not only with his legislative difficulties but with the unanswered attacks on his character was evident in the 23-minute interview with radio station KMOX.

He was testy from the outset, then unloaded on radio interviewers Charles Brennan and Kevin Horrigan after they asked about the alleged pilfering of towels and bathrobes from the aircraft carrier George Washington by White House staff members on the President’s recent trip to Europe to commemorate the D-day anniversary.

“Look at all the things you could have asked me about and you just asked me about that,” Clinton said, his voice rising in wrath. “Did you know that there were other people on that aircraft carrier? Did you know that there were press people on the aircraft carrier? Did you know that the carrier had been fully reimbursed out of the private pocket of a White House staff member who was so upset about it. . . ? No. No.”

White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers went out of her way to insist that Clinton was not angry. He was shouting only to be heard over the engine noise of Air Force One, she said.

“He wasn’t angry and didn’t want to leave the impression that he was,” Myers said after reading wire service accounts that described the President as inflamed. “It sounded a lot harder than it was.”

She said that Clinton did not intend to point fingers at any individuals. “I think the President just spoke his mind,” she added.

Clinton’s assault on Falwell, Limbaugh and other critics elevated to a new plane a battle that Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento) launched earlier this week with an attack on the Republican Party and its supporters from the “intolerant . . . religious right.”

Fazio warned that radical fringe groups are seizing control of the GOP in more than a dozen states and are threatening to become a major force in Congress.

Fazio’s comments were denounced by Republican leaders as “religious bigotry” and a “calculated smear campaign.”

It was clear Friday that Clinton would join Fazio’s line of attack as part of the Democratic Party strategy to demonize the right and stanch Democratic losses in the November mid-term elections.

The President said he respects the religious convictions of evangelicals but that he would not be silent “when people come into the political system and they say that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is Godless, anyone who doesn’t agree with them is not a good Christian, anyone who doesn’t agree with them is fair game for any wild charge, no matter how false, for any kind of personal, demeaning attack.”

The Falwell tape sells for $43, and tens of thousands reportedly have been sold. The people quoted on the tape are several longtime enemies of Clinton who, among other things, suggest that Clinton was involved in several murders in Arkansas.

Falwell aide Mark DeMoss has said that he does not know if the charges are true but believes they should be aired so they can be investigated.

House Republicans also responded to Clinton’s comments. “People who go to work on Monday and church on Sunday are not public enemies,” said Rep. Dick Armey (R-Tex.), who chairs the House GOP Conference. “Clinton should be putting an end to this McCarthyistic tactic now, rather than fanning the flames and setting up some religious right bogeyman.”

The mainstream media also did not escape Friday’s presidential ire. Clinton complained that the reporting on his Administration has emphasized its failures unfairly and ignored its accomplishments.

He said that news reporting today is “much more negative . . , much more editorial . . . and much less direct” than ever before.

And he said that the American people were subjected to a “constant unremitting drumbeat of negativism and cynicism” from talk radio–particularly Limbaugh and his many imitators.

Clinton noted that the three-hour Limbaugh show would follow him on the same radio station and that he would have no opportunity for response or challenge.

“And there’s no truth detector,” Clinton said. “You won’t get on afterwards and say what was true and what wasn’t.”

Limbaugh, in his show Friday, answered the President mockingly, “There is no need for a truth detector. I am the truth detector.”

Clinton said that he had given up hope of receiving better treatment from the press, the religious broadcasters and talk radio.

“So I decided instead of being frustrated, I needed to be aggressive and I’m going to be aggressive from here on in. I’m going to tell what I know the truth to be,” Clinton said.

So no more Mr. Nice Guy?

“I’m going to be very nice about it,” the President said, “but I’m going to be aggressive about it.”

Times staff writer Jeff Leeds in Washington contributed to this story.

DETROIT — In the frantic final firefight of the 1992 presidential campaign, this battered industrial city may have been ground zero.

In the last days before today’s vote, President Bush and Bill Clinton crossed paths over and over again through a narrow band of critical Rust Belt and Great Lakes states–from New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Ohio and Wisconsin. But no state occupied more of their attention than Michigan.

Into this battlefield, the two major contenders have fired television and radio ads, mailings, surrogate speakers and repeated visits of their own–to the point where even veteran local observers have been overwhelmed. Their efforts–reinforced by Ross Perot’s national television barrage–have put the campaign on everyone’s lips.

“There’s a lot of strong feelings on it this year,” said LeAnn Kirrmann, a Republican activist from Grand Ledge, as she waited for Bush to arrive at a rally near here Sunday.

That appears to be the case across the nation, as voters render their verdict on this stormy, vituperative and often path-breaking campaign. Polls show the percentage of voters paying close attention to the campaign has soared this fall, and most experts expect a large turnout–a dramatic conclusion to a campaign that has regularly produced moments of high drama.

“It’s a mortal lock that turnout is going up,” said GOP pollster Bill McInturff.

After tightening significantly last week, national polls show Clinton again holding a comfortable lead over Bush, with Perot lagging behind. Few observers are entirely certain that a campaign that has been consistently unpredictable doesn’t hold one or two more surprises. But a Bush comeback at this stage would rank as the most dramatic reversal of fortune in the final hours of a presidential race.

In their final maneuvering, both Bush and Clinton targeted this state for contrasting reasons that underscore the length of the odds facing the President.

The widespread economic uneasiness in Michigan–symbolized by the continuing turmoil of General Motors Corp., which led to a management shake-up Monday–has always made the state an uphill climb for Bush despite its Republican leanings in recent presidential campaigns.

It remains a daunting challenge for the President now: The latest statewide tracking poll for a Detroit TV station, released Monday night, showed Clinton leading with 46%, Bush with 30% and Ross Perot at 16%.

Facing such numbers, Bush might have written off Michigan in a different year to spend his last campaign hours elsewhere. But the President has been forced to pound relentlessly at the state because there appears to be no way he can win the necessary 270 electoral votes without Michigan’s 18.

That reality defines Clinton’s stake in the state. Although Clinton–with his strong base on both coasts–can probably win today without carrying Michigan, he has invested so heavily here precisely because he knows Bush cannot.

“That’s Clinton’s great advantage,” said Democratic strategist Tad Devine. “He can focus on trying to take just one link out of Bush’s chain.”

Clinton’s intense focus on Michigan represents the reversal of a traditional Republican tactic. Because the GOP base in the South and West left Democrats so little room to maneuver in past presidential campaigns, Republicans have typically been able to dictate the battlefield in the election’s final hours.

In past years, the Republicans devoted enormous resources to a single conservative-leaning state–usually Ohio–confident that if they won there, the Democrats could not reach an Electoral College majority.

This year, though, it is Clinton who has the lead and the flexibility to choose where to fight. He has selected Michigan as his version of Ohio.

“That is a pretty fair analogy,” said David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “Michigan is a linchpin to our Electoral College strategy; it is a state that if we win, it destroys almost any chance that Bush will be reelected.”

With the state playing such a central role in the strategies of both candidates, their efforts here have been enormous. “Some of us,” said Don Tucker, the Democratic chairman in populous Oakland County, “have started to think Clinton and Bush are running for President of Michigan.”

When Clinton arrived in Detroit on Monday for a lunchtime airport rally, it marked his third visit to the area in five days and his sixth trip to the state in two weeks.

On Sunday, Bush roused the faithful with a scathing attack on Clinton at a rally in Auburn Hills, just north of here–his third run at the state in eight days.

Last Thursday, voters from around the state were able to ask Bush questions in a televised town meeting from Grand Rapids. The next night Clinton flew to the Detroit suburbs to hold his own televised town meeting.

When Clinton forces made their final buy of television time last week, they estimated they were placing enough commercials on the air so that each Michigan resident would see them 14 times through Election Day.

Bush, both sides figure, is on the air even more heavily–especially with a foreboding spot about Clinton’s record as governor that might be titled “Apocalypse Arkansas.” From both sides, acerbic radio advertisements blare incessantly.

As for Perot, local observers say his ad assault has been less visible than in some other states. But his promises to shake up Washington have won him a strong following.

At one point early last week, Republican polls showed Perot surging over 20% in this state. With most of Perot’s gains coming from Clinton, that tightened the Michigan race considerably.

But, as has happened throughout the country, Perot’s support has slipped here since he accused the White House last week of engineering dirty tricks that forced his withdrawal from the race in July. Initially, the voters deserting Perot disproportionately moved to Bush, but now Clinton is winning his share of those voters and consolidating his lead.

“The President is unlikely to close the gap in Michigan on Election Day,” said GOP pollster Steve Lombardo.

Even with Clinton’s lead in the polls, Democrats here remain edgy. Almost without exception, they are haunted by the memory of 1990, when then-Gov. James J. Blanchard led Republican John Engler by 10 percentage points in the final polls–and then was swept from office by a strong Republican effort to get out their vote, coupled with a poor turnout in Detroit.

Democrats are insistent that won’t happen again. Registration is up in Detroit, and Mayor Coleman A. Young has put his shoulder into the Clinton effort. One local official estimated this weekend that 65% of registered Detroit voters could come to the polls today, compared to just 54% four years ago.

Unions are pushing hard too: The UAW has been distributing to members copies of a Flint newspaper article reporting that Ross Perot owns a Mercedes-Benz and other foreign cars. In Michigan, that’s not much different than burning a flag.

Republican efforts to turn out the vote are just as intense. In Oakland County alone, GOP volunteers made more than 150,000 calls last weekend, said Jim Alexander, the county GOP chairman.

Local observers say religious conservatives and anti-abortion activists are mounting powerful drives; thousands of copies of the Christian Coalition’s voter guide on the presidential candidates were distributed at Bush’s rally in Auburn Hills on Sunday.

Beyond its impact on the Electoral College, voting in Michigan should help answer some of the key questions on which the results will pivot around the nation. Among them:

* Can Clinton reclaim the so-called Reagan Democrats–the blue-collar ethnics who deserted the party during the 1970s and 1980s over taxes, the economy and the perception that Democrats favored minorities?

Stressing such issues as welfare reform and his support for the death penalty, Clinton has aggressively courted voters in Macomb County, a Detroit suburb renowned as the breeding ground of Reagan Democrats.

Republicans have fired back with targeted mailers hitting Clinton on trust and taxes. And Perot could be a formidable competitor in Macomb County and similar neighborhoods for the votes of working-class residents disgusted with Bush and the gridlock in Washington.

* Can Bush hold suburban Republicans and independents who favor abortion rights? Four years ago, he carried the generally affluent Detroit suburb of Oakland County by 109,000 votes. But the hard-right line on social issues at the Republican Convention did not play well there, and Democrats are optimistic that Clinton’s centrist message will allow him to make significant inroads, not only in Oakland County but in similar places in New Jersey, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

* Can Clinton get the high turnout he needs from blacks after a campaign so heavily focused on wooing white swing voters in the suburbs? The answer will affect the result not only here but in other industrial states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Southern battlegrounds like Georgia and Louisiana.

* Will young voters show up today? One reason Clinton’s margin diminished in some national surveys last week is those polls included very few young people among their likely voters–and Clinton, the first baby boomer to top a national ticket, has been running very well with the young.

In 1988, just 36% of eligible voters age 18 to 24 actually turned out. Mike Dolan, field director for Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan national effort to register and turn out young voters, predicts as many as half of them may vote this year.

Such a spike in turnout would be a huge boost for Clinton; in this state, for example, he has courted students at rallies at both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.

One cloud on the Democratic horizon is the possibility of rain today in Michigan and much of the Midwest. Conventional wisdom holds that rain could dampen turnout in Detroit and other urban centers and pinch Clinton’s vote.

But many on both sides believe that interest in this campaign is so high that even rain won’t cool it off. “With all of the attention to the race this year,” Alexander said, “I don’t know if even rain is going to matter.”