Gore Retreats on Gay Policy Support

Vice President Al Gore said Friday he would not make support for allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military a condition for promoting officers to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

His statement represented a retreat from his declaration two days earlier in a debate with Bill Bradley that support for such a policy shift would be a litmus test for appointment to the nation’s highest military posts.

In the debate in New Hampshire, he said: “I would insist before appointing anyone to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that that individual support my policy, and yes, I would make that a requirement.”

On Friday, as he campaigned in Iowa and criticism of his remarks grew, Gore told reporters: “I did not mean to imply there should be any kind of inquiry about the personal political opinions of officers in the military.” He did, however, reaffirm his belief that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

Bradley supports allowing gays in the military, and in the debate said that, as president, he would expect military officers to follow the orders of their commander in chief. He did not say the issue would be a litmus test for membership in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on Friday his spokesman, Eric Hauser, called such a test “inappropriate and not relevant.”

Gore also moved to ease a simmering embarrassment caused by comments his campaign manager made that were critical of retired Gen. Colin L. Powell. He spoke by telephone with the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and so did the campaign chief, Donna Brazile.

In an interview in late December with Bloomberg.com, Brazile, the first African American woman to lead a major presidential campaign, compared the work of the Clinton administration on behalf of African Americans and Latinos with that of the Republicans and said:

“The Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts [Jr.] because they have no program, no policy. They play that game because they have no other game. They have no love and no joy. They’d rather take pictures with black children than feed them.” Watts is a Republican congressman from Oklahoma.

The vice president said Friday he considers Powell “a friend of long standing” and that in the call he “reaffirmed my personal respect for him.”

Gore walked away as reporters asked whether he had apologized to Powell.

Brazile’s remarks came under attack from the left and right Friday. Bradley, a former senator from New Jersey, said while campaigning in Iowa that Brazile’s comments are a sign of divisive politics. “I do not believe in using race in any way whatsoever in a campaign other than to project who we can be as a people if we unify,” he said.

Friday evening, during a debate of Republican presidential candidates, publisher Steve Forbes urged Gore to fire Brazile, a call that was echoed by conservative activist Gary Bauer.

The ruckus over Brazile and Gore’s remarks on the Joint Chiefs of Staff bubbled up suddenly this week, forcing the vice president into a rare defensive posture and a brief shift away from his efforts to undercut Bradley’s support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first stops in the campaign season.

Gore, in a brief question-and-answer session with reporters at Valley High School after a day-ending campaign rally, said that he had not used the words “litmus test” to describe how he would approach an interview with a prospective member of the nation’s top military panel.

Indeed, the term was used in a question posed to Gore and Bradley, the two rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. They were asked whether they would support such a “litmus test” before nominating members of the Joint Chiefs.

Gore’s response included his statement that before appointing anyone to the panel he would make sure the officer supported his policy.

He said in December that as president he would move to undo the military’s prohibition on service by gays and lesbians.

Expanding on his comments Friday, Gore said to reporters: “Would I inquire into the personal, political opinions of an officer as a condition for a promotion? Absolutely not.”

In addition, he said he would “absolutely” tolerate debate as he sought advice before establishing a policy. But, he added, “I would insist on having a member of the Joint Chiefs who would implement that policy” once it was set.

Also this week, Gore and Bradley each released a pair of new TV ads in New Hampshire and Iowa. In dueling promises on education, Gore offered a “revolutionary plan to improve our public schools by increasing our commitment to education by 50%,” while Bradley promised to train and place 60,000 new teachers a year for the next 10 years.

Candidates have been loath to attack each other directly in ads, fearing American voters are disillusioned with negative campaigning, but both men inched closer to it in their new spots. In a Gore health care ad, the narrator takes a swipe at Bradley without naming him, saying Gore is “the only Democratic candidate who saves Medicare instead of replacing it with a $150-a-month voucher.” Bradley has proposed replacing Medicare, which he says leaves millions uninsured, with a voucher system to help people purchase insurance.

In his second new ad, Bradley returns the favor, indirectly criticizing Gore for lambasting his proposals. “People accuse me of offering big ideas that they say are risky. I say the real risk is not doing the things I’ve set out to do in this campaign.”

*

Times staff writers Matea Gold and Janet Wilson contributed to this story.