Gore Struggles to Explain His Position on Elian
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Vice President Gore says his position on the Elian Gonzalez case has been
the same ever since the controversy over the Cuban boy broke four
months ago. For a man whose position has never changed, however, the
vice president lately has been having a hard time making that position
understood.
Just days ago, Gore drew wide notice--and considerable criticism--for
breaking with President Clinton and endorsing special legislation to extend
resident status to Elian and his relatives in Cuba. The idea, aides said,
was
that this would shift the legal jurisdiction over the case to Florida family
court, which could then decide what is in the boy's best interest.
But in a television interview yesterday morning, Gore stirred up more
confusion about his wishes in the case. Asked on NBC's "Today" show
what should happen if the boy's father, assuming he comes to the United
States, says he wants to return with Elian to Cuba, Gore responded: "If
the
father says on free soil that he believes the son should go back to Cuba
with him, that, of course, is likely to be determinative and will be
determinative."
There was no mention of the need for special legislation, and no mention
that the father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, should have to first make his case
in
a Florida domestic relations court.
Had Gore changed his position? A few hours later, his Nashville campaign
office released a statement from the candidate, apparently designed to
assure people that Gore's stance had not changed: "From the beginning,
I
have said that, at heart, this is a custody matter that should be handled
in a
domestic relations court with expertise in these matters."
This means legislation would still be necessary. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service has ruled that Elian's father should take custody
of
the boy, and his Miami relatives have appealed to federal courts. But Gore
aides say the INS and the federal courts are making decisions based on
immigration law and diplomatic precedent rather than on what is in the
best
interest of the child.
For a long time, the vice president tried to keep his position on Elian
ambiguous. Pressed as far back as January about whether he supported
returning the boy to Cuba, Gore sought to avoid making an open break
with the administration. But he said in a Jan. 17 debate in Iowa that if
the
father "is not allowed to come here and speak freely, then the matter
should be addressed in our domestic relations courts."
Gore aides and other administration officials said the vice
president--consulting with a small group that included campaign chairman
Tony Coelho and chief of staff Charles Burson--decided it was important
to make his disagreement with the administration explicit. Some sources
said he feared that a "precipitous" decision by federal authorities to
forcibly
take Elian away from the Miami relatives with whom he is living would
cause a political backlash in Florida.
Gore political consultant Robert Shrum is also a consultant to Miami
Mayor Joe Carollo. But Shrum said he knew of no consultations between
the Gore team and the mayor, and that he was not serving as an
intermediary.
Gore's position has evolved over the months. In January, he said Elian's
father could bring about the return of his son to Cuba merely by stating
"on
free soil" that he wished to do so. As Gore and various aides describe
it
now, the father should not only come to the United States but convince
a
family court that it is in Elian's best interest that he live with him,
either in
Cuba or in the United States.
The campaign of Texas Gov. George W. Bush (R), who also supports
resolving the case in family court, said Gore's statements have been a
muddle. "When it comes to the future of Elian Gonzalez, it's becoming
increasingly hard to understand what Al Gore believes in or what he thinks
should be done," said spokesman Ari Fleischer. "At a time when Elian and
his family deserve clarity, the vice president has made the situation more
confusing."