By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 7, 2001; 8:30 AM

Presidential elections, it turns out, really do matter.

It's not just that, by the grand margin of 537 votes, give or take a few hanging chads, the son of a former president gets to occupy the Oval Office instead of the son of a senator.

It's not just that we got a bigger tax cut, a faith-based initiative, colorful twin daughters and a dog named Spot, or that reporters have to spend August in Crawford.

There are hundreds of policy disputes, some buried deep in the bureaucracy, that are affected by a new administration – many of them barely discussed during the campaign, or unanticipated at the time.

That's where a president's power is really felt.

Just ask Bill Gates.

The Justice Department's decision yesterday not to seek a breakup of Microsoft is the direct result of John Ashcroft's appointment and a pro-business administration that prefers a much lighter regulatory hand.

It's inconceivable that a President Gore would have done this, in part because the antitrust suit was filed under the Clinton-Gore watch.

(Of course, Ashcroft might never have gotten the chance if a federal appeals court hadn't yanked the case from Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson for blabbing to the press, and assigned it to a new judge. Microsoft, you may recall, was found guilty of monopoly behavior.)

Nor is this the first time that Ashcroft has reversed a Clinton regulatory policy. He's also named a team of lawyers to explore a settlement in the government's case against the tobacco industry. You'd have to bet that the cigarette companies get a more favorable outcome than they would have if Gore had won.

It's not immediately clear what the impact on Microsoft will be, but the media, which love both lawsuits and technology stories, will be buzzing about this one for days.

Let's start with the New York Times: "The Justice Department, seeking a conclusion to the antitrust case against Microsoft that it can call a victory, said today that it would no longer seek to split the software company in two or contend that it illegally tied its Internet browser to its dominant computer operating system.

"Instead, the department said it would focus on the primary charge upheld by an appeals court, that Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for personal computer operating systems. Based on that charge alone, the Justice Department said it will seek to place limits on Microsoft's business practices, perhaps more stringent than those it had sought in conjunction with a breakup.

"While at first glance the announcement would seem to be a mighty concession to the software company, a senior official at the Justice Department's Antitrust Division categorically rejected that characterization as a 'substantial error' and noted that the lawsuit is still pending. He declined to say whether Microsoft had made any settlement overtures. The official said the decision announced today was made in the public interest as part of an attempt to resolve the case 'in all of our lifetimes.'

"Historically, antitrust cases have been known to drag on for years, and the official said a long delay would not be good in the Microsoft suit since computer and software technology change so quickly. The government's suit against Microsoft was filed in 1998."

The Washington Post is in the broader-implications business: "By choosing to stop pursuing a breakup of Microsoft Corp., the government refocused attention on whether the Bush administration will aggressively prosecute the company for antitrust violations or try to reach a minimal settlement and move on.

"'Is this something we view as going soft on Microsoft? Absolutely not,' said a senior official in the Justice Department's antitrust division. The government intends to curb the company's excesses through other means. Jettisoning the request to force a breakup will help the case move faster and result in speedier remedies for consumers, officials said.

"Yet, many experts also said that by removing the severest possible sanction from the bargaining table, the Justice Department and its allies, 17 states and the District of Columbia, have handed a significant victory to the Redmond, Wash.-based software firm. Microsoft viewed any proposed breakup as a fundamental threat to its success and vigorously fought the idea in court.

"'Obviously it's a concession,' said Andrew Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. 'It's clear this Department of Justice was never crazy about the idea of a breakup as a philosophical matter.'"

The Wall Street Journal follows the money: "Microsoft hasn't been shy about flexing its political muscle in Washington to influence lawmakers and regulators. In addition to big contributions to state parties, the company gave more than $4.7 million during the 1999-2000 elections to federal candidates and parties – almost three times what the company contributed during the previous three election cycles combined, according to a report released Thursday by the Center for Responsive Politics.

"That money included $10,000 to the Ashcroft Victory Committee, a soft-money account run jointly by the Ashcroft campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Microsoft also was a major contributor to the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund, donating $100,000 to the gala last January."

Salon is, shall we say, skeptical: "Is history repeating itself? In 1981, an incoming Reagan administration dismissed an antitrust case against IBM that had been in the works for 13 years. . . .

"At first glance, Microsoft's foes could be excused for throwing up their hands in exasperation. In come the Republicans, out goes the antitrust enforcement. After years of testimony, evidence, cross-examination and countless appeals to higher courts, a simple change in administration could be seen as the most significant determination of legal strategy and outcome. An administration that has rapidly established itself as one of the most corporate-friendly in recent memory is backing away from the fight, pledging to end the whole unseemly mess 'as quickly as possible.'"

Still, "one could easily argue that the DOJ is making the best of what it has, focusing its case on the specific points in which the appellate court ruled in its favor."

Meanwhile, a couple of interesting executive-privilege battles are brewing, the The Boston Globe reports:

"On two fronts, the Bush administration is engaged in an escalating standoff with Congress over its right to keep certain documents secret from Democrats and Republicans.

"Vice President Dick Cheney refused to tell Congress yesterday about private meetings his energy task force held with special interest groups while drafting a national energy policy, missing a deadline imposed by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

"Also yesterday, a White House official said President Bush is preparing to invoke executive privilege today in refusing to turn over documents to a Republican lawmaker. The papers concern federal prosecutors' decisions in Democratic fund-raising cases. It would be Bush's first use of the privilege, the right of a president to keep secret the advice and deliberations that go into his decision-making. Cheney's refusal leaves David M. Walker, GAO comptroller general, to seek a court order to compel the vice president to produce the information – something the GAO has never done – or to drop the matter. . . .

Could the Condit saga soon be over? It may depend on whether the New York Post is right with this report:

"Rep. Gary Condit is 'leaning toward' retiring at the end of his term in the wake of the public scandal over missing intern Chandra Levy, sources said.

"The embattled politician has spent the past two days holed up in a basement office talking to colleagues about retiring, said congressional sources. Condit is contemplating retiring when his term ends in January 2003, but is not considering resigning before then, said a House staffer.

"The California Democrat has been reaching out to fellow lawmakers while working out of a basement office near the House gym in an effort to avoid the white-hot media spotlight. Condit has until Dec. 7 to decide whether he'll run again – but sources told The Post he would make up his mind by Oct. 20, when he has scheduled a massive 'Condit Country' fund-raiser in California. . . .

"Amid the talk of Condit's retirement, a grand jury was convened in Modesto, Calif., yesterday to hear evidence that he obstructed justice by allegedly asking flight attendant Anne Marie Smith to sign an affidavit denying they'd had an affair."

Could this be the next big issue for the shouting heads? "The Rev. Jesse Jackson will make reparations for the past enslavement of blacks his No. 1 issue this fall, an aide to the civil rights leader promised yesterday," says the Washington Times.

"The 59-year-old Mr. Jackson will hold a press conference at the Rainbow/PUSH headquarters in Chicago this morning to announce details of his new campaign.

"'It is something new, a new priority,' said Nizam Arain, acting press secretary for Mr. Jackson, who is scheduled to return tonight from the U.N. World Conference Against Racism. 'It was raised and discussed at our annual convention [in August]. There are a variety of angles he intends to use, and I know that legislation is one, maybe even the top angle.'

"Mr. Jackson stepped up his rhetoric on reparations to American blacks for slavery at the conference this week, telling a news service that 'we must make crooked ways straight.'"

Finally, Newsweek's Martha Brant describes a recent Democratic media blitz: "While President Bush and Congress were away, the DNC's top man, Terry McAuliffe, decided it was time to play politics, by stepping up a public-relations campaign over the Internet. He hired three former Clinton staffers to run his press shop, put them to work unearthing the e-mail addresses of all the White House press corps and lined up a stable of Democratic experts primed to spin on almost anything. . . .

"The DNC began sponsoring conference calls on everything from stem cells to the budget. . . . Hanging around the Crawford Elementary School gymnasium, Bush reporters often had nothing better to do than to patch into the calls. 'We knew we had a captive audience,' says DNC press secretary Jennifer Palmieri, a veteran of the Clinton press office who was hired last month. 'We learned a few tricks.' One is rapid response. When they got the word that Bush was making his stem-cell announcement, for example, they quickly put together a conference call that afternoon with former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta and medical expert Dr. Harold Varmus. . . .

"'Terry wants the DNC to be the center of gravity for coordinating the response to Bush,' Palmieri says. McAuliffe, a close friend of Clinton's, is a high-profile, aggressive operator. . . .

"'The Democratic party is still in the control of Clinton's people,' says press secretary Ari Fleischer. 'The mentality is one of constant campaign. The president doesn't believe in that.' The president might not, but the Republican National Committee is certainly matching an ad for an ad, and an e-mail for an e-mail."

The "O'Reilly Factor" did it for the fifth time last night, talking about Gary Condit after Bill O'Reilly vowed last week to lay off.

The Buffalo News: "Student leaders at the University at Buffalo say the university administration nixed their choice of Bill Clinton as a guest speaker because the ex-president is too controversial.

"Student government officials say they believe they could have afforded Clinton's hefty speaking fee – a reported $125,000 – but the university killed the idea of inviting him.

"'Without a shadow of a doubt, we would have made it happen,' said Christian Oliver, the Student Association president. 'Clinton would have been a good speaker.' University officials, however, say they never rejected Clinton as being too controversial for UB's Distinguished Speakers series.

"The timing would be better in 2003 or 2004, when Clinton could comment on an upcoming presidential election and his autobiography, and when his fee might be less expensive, they say."

The Los Angeles Times: "Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan revealed Thursday that he secretly underwent 44 days of radiation treatments for prostate cancer while serving out his second term in City Hall. He said he is now free of all signs of disease.

"Riordan seemed to suggest that, after months of conspicuously weighing whether to run for governor of California, he had resolved to do so. Asked in a brief interview, he said he was making his ordeal public now 'because I'm running for office and I think the voters have a right to know about it.' Riordan said he plans to make a final decision on a bid next month.

"The cancer was discovered in October during a routine examination, Riordan and his doctors said. His radiation treatments stretched from late February until May 1. Riordan left office on June 30.

"Cancer specialists say that men with the type and degree of cancer that afflicted Riordan have a high rate of long-term survival, if promptly treated. . . .

"Opponents of his presumed statehouse bid have already sought to make an issue of his age, and Riordan, 71, acknowledged that detractors are likely to try to use his health history to suggest he isn't up to running a state with the world's fifth-largest economy. He is 13 years older than Gov. Gray Davis."

The Charlotte Observer: "Hispanic advocacy groups want an apology from state Rep. Don Davis for forwarding to his colleagues an e-mail that complained Hispanics 'suck us dry.'

"The e-mail – which was sent to Davis, then copied with his business card and placed on House members' desks in July – criticizes a Spanish ballot instruction initiative approved by lawmakers.

"'These Mexicans and all these other Hispanics have not done one thing for this country except suck us dry. Every day I see them in our grocery stores using food stamps,' the e-mail said. . . .

"The demand for an apology comes a week after protesters called on the Harnett County Republican to resign over a similar incident in August, in which he forwarded an e-mail that stated, 'Two things made this country great: White men and Christianity.'

"Davis, who is white, apologized for sending that e-mail but also defended its contents. He said the groups that are criticizing him don't respect his right to express himself."