The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Wise investment philosophy, funding has also been provided by PepsiCo and by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADL, supermarket to the world. And by the corporation for public broadcasting, and by the annual financial support from viewers like you. Farmer football star OJ Simpson was charged today with two counts of murder. The alleged victims were his ex-wife and a male friend. Jeffrey Kay reports from Los Angeles. St.

J. Simpson was charged today with two counts of murder. The alleged victims were his ex-wife and a male friend. The 46-year-old Simpson is being sought by Los Angeles police after failing to surrender as he had promised. Late today, the District Attorney said a former teammate of Simpson was also being sought. The charges against Simpson could carry the

death penalty or life without parole. He had earlier denied any involvement in the killings. 35-year-old Nicole Simpson and 25-year-old Ronald Goldman were found murdered late Sunday night. The Simpsons have two young children and were divorced in 1992. This afternoon, a commander of the Los Angeles Police spoke to reporters. Simpson, in agreement with his attorney, was scheduled to surrender this morning to the Los Angeles Police Department. Initially, that was 11 o'clock. It then became 1145. Mr. Simpson is not appeared. The Los Angeles Police Department right now is actively searching for Mr. Simpson. The Los Angeles Police Department is also very unhappy with the activities surrounding his failure to surrender. And we will be looking further into those activities,

including anyone that may have intervened on his behalf. The commander said police believe Simpson is still in the Los Angeles area. Margaret? President Clinton said today the U.S. is still seeking U.N. sanctions against North Korea. He was reacting to reports that former President Jimmy Carter told North Korea's president that the U.S. was willing to hold off on its drive for sanctions. Mr. Carter has been in North Korea trying to defuse the crisis over the country's suspected nuclear arms program. Mr. Clinton said he was sticking to the position he outlined yesterday. That is, that Washington will keep pursuing sanctions until North Korea affirms that it's willing to freeze its nuclear program in place. President Clinton talked about crime today to residents of Chicago's Robert Taylor Holmes, the largest housing project in the United States. He also toured the nearby police station where he was shown a large display of guns and assault weapons taken from people

at the project. The homes are the site of a recent controversy over gun sweeps into apartments without warrants. President Clinton told residents those searches are necessary. One of the reporters asked me about the policy here of the sweeps and about the assault weapons. And he said, Mr. President, are we going to have to be willing to give up some of our personal freedom to live in safety? And I said that I thought the most important freedom we have in this country is the freedom from fear. And if people aren't free from fear, they are not free. Later in the day, the president also attended the opening ceremonies of the World Cup Soccer Finals in Chicago. He joined the leaders of Germany and Bolivia whose teams played in the first match. We'll have more on soccer later in the program. President Clinton today appointed two emergency boards to help mediate the Long Island railroads strike that began overnight. The strike by 2,300 members of the United Transportation

Union shut down the country's largest commuter rail line today. Thousands of commuters were forced to find alternate forms of transportation this morning. The Union is striking over wage rates and work rules and workers have been without a contract for almost two and a half years. For now, no new talks are scheduled. A bill to end the strike has been introduced in Congress, but no action is expected before Tuesday. Eight members of the Branch Davidians were sentenced in San Antonio today in the killing of four federal agents last year. Five were given the maximum of 40 years, the other three from five to 20 years. All were convicted on weapons charges stemming from a shootout in Waco and which the federal agents were killed. The shootout began a 51-day standoff which culminated in a fire that killed a video leader David Koresh and 78 of his followers. The Supreme Court rule today, juries must be told if the alternative to the death sentence as life is a life term without parole. By a 72 vote that justices struck down a South

Carolina law that bars juries from learning about the choice. The ruling over turns the death sentence of a convicted killer. NATO announced today that Russia's foreign minister will sign the alliance's partnership for peace agreement next week. The program grants special NATO cooperative status to former East block nations and many have already joined. NATO officials stress that Russia won't be treated any differently from other East European countries and won't have a say in NATO decision-making. In Rwanda, a United Nations peace keeper was killed by a rebel grenade near the Capitol today. The peacekeeper's death forced the swift cancellation of ceasefire talks that had begun earlier in the day. And heavy fighting in Kagali forced the UN to cancel once again its planned evacuations of hundreds of civilians. And that's it for the new summer tonight. Now it's on to new directions and problems for the NAACP, the business of soccer, shields in Gigo, and a Roger Rosenblatt say. Now, where is the NAACP going? Earlier this week, the National Association for

the Advancement of Color People sponsored a three-day National Summit of Black Leaders in Baltimore. The purpose to forge a new civil rights agenda. The attendees were a cross-section of political, business, and religious figures. But it was the inclusion of nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, that touched off a firestorm of protest from many of the NAACP's mainstream supporters. NAACP director Benjamin Chavis and the organization's National Field Secretary Earl Shinhoster had agreed to join this discussion, which we had originally planned for last night. But late on both afternoons, the NAACP withdrew. So we pick up the issue now with Jesse Jackson, longtime civil rights activist, and founder and president of the Rainbow Coalition. Michael Myers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, and the former assistant director of the NAACP. Jack Greenberg, the former director council

of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. He's the author of the recently published book Crusaders in the courts about the civil rights movement's legal battles. And Al Sharpton, a community activist and a candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination in New York State. Welcome, gentlemen. Reverend Jackson, longtime civil rights activist Julian Bond wrote recently that by inviting Louis Farrakhan to the Baltimore summit, the NAACP had made itself a partner in Farrakhan's hateful views of whites, Jews, and homosexuals. He went on to say that it was such a grave mistake that it, quote, may condemn the NAACP's noble history to a shameful oblivion. Julian Bond, right? I don't believe that. I think in the democracy, we must be civilized enough to agree to agree, or to agree, to disagree. And I support the conversation over confrontation when it's necessary. And I think if I were in the U.S. Senate, I met with strong Thurman and

Jessah Hamms and Hollins in the committee, that would not be condemned. When you think about Farrakhan's things, he said, which are unacceptable to many people. Those are rhetoric wars. But when you think about the clerk and Mandela meeting, they had to meet to end blood wars. You think about the Arafat and Reben meeting, or you think about the meeting involving the big and the answer that. It just seems to me, in a democracy, we ought to be encouraging talking what ought to be the issues what was discussed. And I think that is what has been missed. I mean, the NAACP meeting was a economic development, an alternative to welfare. That was what Van Shaver's had as the primary agenda. Second was education of our youth, and empowerment is opposed to going to jail, and third the modern spiritual regeneration. I think it's not right to spend Summersam on the extraction of who was present and not on what was discussed. Well, we hope here to discuss the NAACP's

new direction. Let me ask Michael Myers, you've been critical of that decision to invite Lewis Farrakhan. Why, and what do you make of Reverend Jackson's defense of it? The answer to your question is that the NAACP is headed toward the role of self-destruction. It's been hijacked by black extremists. Lewis Farrakhan is the apostle of hate, the apostle of black racism, the apostle of anti-Semitism. By doctrine, his nation of Islam believes in racial apartheid in the separate states for blacks and for whites. The NAACP believes just the exact opposite. The NAACP believes in integration. It also has a charter that says, in its beginning, that it shall have straight talk about all forms of racism, and it will be opposed vigorously, and strangely opposed to racism or all kinds. The NAACP's Ben Chavis, as well as the board of directors of the NAACP for who can employ them, it seems to me, by inviting the apostle of hate to the table, has given cover for that kind of racism,

and has become an accessory to bigotry. Moreover, the NAACP, and the difference here is that the NAACP is a membership organization. It is an inclusionary membership. It includes whites, nations, and Latinos, not just blacks. For the NAACP, the mainstream organization that it is, to have a racially exclusionary meeting, to not even- Not because no whites were invited. That's right, not to even allow the three members of a national board, 64 board, who are white, into the room. For them to have such a meeting, it seems to me, to violate the spirit and the leather of its charter, and the tear it up. So I think that, and it can make an- Trevor Jackson, let him finish playing. I'm sorry. They conveys the message that the NAACP is appealing to and pandering to the passions and prejudices of what Roy Wilton's warned against, and that is a cult of blackism. Jack Greenberg, you have long associations of the NAACP. The NAACP has had great successes, but all those great successes have been part of a broad coalition of people of all religions and people of all races to associate with someone

like Farrakhan, no matter what Reverend Jackson says about the utility of speech, we'll certainly drive away Jews, we'll drive away Catholics. Most Hispanics with whom the NAACP should be having an alliance are Roman Catholics, and consign it to the role of the student on violent coordinating committee, which once was integrated in successful turn separatists and disintegrated, the Congress of Racial Equality, which was once integrated in successful turn separatists and disintegrated, the Black Panthers, which were separatists and disintegrated, the Marcus Garvey, the half-American movement. Most black people don't support that, and certainly virtually know white people support it, and if the NAACP is to be successful, particularly in today's day and age, when it blacks will soon no longer be the largest minority in the country, it has to have a broad coalition with all groups. Mr. Sharp, and you don't have a long history of the NAACP, but does this sound like the organization that you saw at that meeting? Is it moving this separate to stir-ish?

I think we're confusing two things. The summit meeting in Baltimore was a summit hosted by the NAACP for Black leaders. The NAACP convention will be in Chicago in a couple of weeks. I don't think we should confuse what will be the NAACP and how it will operate, and I'm sure Mr. Myers and others that want to raise the internal issues will be free to do that, with them hosting a meeting with our side guests that some of us that attended work. Secondly, I don't think that Black leaders to meet is any difference for the conference of Jewish organizations that meet here in New York, the Polish-American Congress. We don't call them races, but what's more disturbing to me is what standard are we going to operate by? The Cardinal has a very strong position about gays and lesbians. Should we say he's homophobic and not allow him in the meeting? I mean, who is going to determine now who is included in exclude? If the barometer that we're going to look for is that we want a cross-section of leadership, those that have a following should be invited to the table, and people

should agree and disagree. But I think if we're going to impose a standard on some that is not used on others, then we are reinforcing double standards rather than solve it. I don't think that the people at that meeting have any following. As Jack suggested, the majority of Blacks in this country are integration. It's not separatist. The people who are there, if you know a Black extremist. But that the gender was not about separatism and integration. People like Dr. Alvin who sought their harbors that country, talking about the plight of our country. Of course it was. People like Dr. Connor with the Polish, but the cross-section of American citizens who said they're dealing with the pathology and crisis of urban America. What do you say to people like Mr. Myers and Mr. Greenberg, who were long associated with the NAACP, who say that the inclusion of someone like Louis Farrakhan makes them feel unwelcome, particularly any white or any situation there. I guess I guess I'm really saying that when I think about rhetoric wars, where we speak

on kind of about each other, which I do not support, in conscience how we applaud when the people end blood wars. It's a new South African, mandolin the clerk. He locked them in up 27 years, and that's the Arafat Rabanne meeting. These were blood wars. Can we not at least talk it out rather than fight it out? I mean, if we came out of that meeting with a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic conclusion, that should be condemned. But the even to change people's ways, we have to meet even to alter their cause. All right, let me ask you to mention that the not- Not to Louis is a moral, Reverend Jackson, please. What does Mr. Farrakhan bring that's so special? Well, first of all, he wasn't only one invited. I think we're here to discuss his inclusion. What does he bring that's so special? Well, he brings is one who has a following that should have been invited if that was a determination of Mr. Chase, who called the meeting. Now, what other people

have done, there are a lot of people that would invite. What other people have done is try to use that distraction. I think what is as a distraction, I think what is more important is what is the standard that we're going to use. If it's Farrakhan today, and it becomes who tomorrow, who, how are we going to establish? What is the standard, the whole of the leadership meeting? If it's not based on goals that have established a following. All right, yes, Mr. Greenberg. Leonard Jeffries doesn't have a following as far as I know. I mean, he's got the bunch of students in his class. He doesn't have a following. It's why you're Leonard Jeffries. Leonard Jeffries is an anti-Semitic professor at City University, and he doesn't have a following. Why was he invited? I'm a Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah. Look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look, look at the breath of the Knesset, you have some people who want to trade itself after the Wallace Pothate was legal. You've got some others of the opposite extreme, because some others who said Palestinians should have no place virtually nowhere,

others who disagree, but at least they will under one roof to agree, to agree, or to agree to disagree. All right, Reverend Jeff And then you're going to be Now I go to Michael Myers. Michael Myers will not be in his apartment. His apartment has raised an interesting point, which is that the Louis Faircon does have a huge following. And in fact, in a recent poll of African Americans by time magazine, when asked who's the most important black leader in America today, the number one volunteer was the Reverend Jackson. But the number two volunteer was Louis Faircon. Where are the charismatic integrationist leaders? If you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you measure a P, a one's appeal by who attends a stadium, and then it's Louis Faircon first, and then the Reverend Jackson second. But if that was the appeal of the NAACP, if they wanted to appeal to the black extremists to the, to the passions and projects of the people, if they wanted to appeal to those kind of people, the national appoint, Louis Faircon, the executive director of the NAACP,

not Ben Chavis, because he can't feel him at all. That's a second, Reverend, we heard Houston listen to Alistair, you want to talk, Reverend Jackson, that's not my story, Reverend Jackson, please listen to it. As far as talking is concerned, you know, it's very interesting to self-select the audience that they had. Where were the military integrations in that room? There weren't any. They, they, they put port to have a democratic dialogue, but they're talking to themselves. And I suggest to you, Reverend Jackson and others, that when, with this covenant with Louis, with Louis Faircon, you should tear it up. You haven't renounced it yet. You haven't resented it yet. He has not repudiated his anti-Semitism. He, in fact, he has talked about the truth of Khalid Abdul Muhammad's talk, and nobody, in the, on the mainstream, so rightly, would you please ask the question, what, please? I'm Reverend Jackson, Reverend Jackson, I'd like to ask you this, Reverend Jackson, you know what I'm talking, Reverend Jackson is the hate part of Louis Faircon's message, the secret of his appeal. And is this what the NAACP is trying to latch on to? I think so, and, friend, well, I do not think the hatred, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia,

of anybody should be embraced or approved. But that meeting was about age trying to have not a covenant. That's not direct. Some kind of operational unit to agree to disagree. To focus on economic justice, the lack of an urban policy, education for our youth as an all-turned-of-the-drawer, and, you know, the name of the Muslim, I'm sorry. Why can't whites age as Latinos come into the room with a separate right-side gender? And they can. I suppose, when I spoke about the month ago, to the conference of Jewish presidents, about six of them in New York, that was just Jewish presidents. That was not offensive. It was perfect. All right? Let me ask Mr. Sharpton a question. Mr. Sharpton, do you think there's a future, do you think the NAACP has a future? Absolutely. I think it does. And I think we must realize, again, that people cannot have this type of cynical paternalism over-approven when people that have proven that they can lead and serve sit down and discuss things, even if they disagree. I mean, that's

insulting to our intelligence to act like we cannot sit in a room, even though we disagree. And many people that are critical of this summit, also critical of a day in thinkers who didn't have any of these type of things that they claim that Minister Farah Khan has. Mr. Myers had the same view of Mr. Dinkers, it was very critical. So I think, no, we're not changes, what I'm saying is that I think people have a very strange type of paternalism, that they want to guide our footsteps rather than help us go where we're going. We ought to be talking about the threat to voters' rights and Reverend Jackson and others rule across the South about. We ought to be talking about how we don't have health care for citizens, rather than discussing a guest list that all of us accepted to the NAACP summit. If there's a problem with Mr. Myers' feeling or how the NAACP is going, he ought to go to the convention and handle that. But we, that accepted an invitation to go for a needed dialogue, I think, should be commended not condemned.

I went to the annual meeting of the members of the NAACP in February, and I tried to raise the issue of the covenant with Lewis Farah Khan. And guess what? They changed the rules, they cut the microphones off, and they are during the meeting. I am a member there, and they say, be in our life member. And we're going to, to the convention in Chicago in July. We're going to meet about Ben Tavis there, and we're going to, we're going to get the, I think we're going to enough votes from the Board National Board now, and it's coming together, we're going to ask Reverend Tavis as well as Bill Gibson, the Chairman of the Board. We're going to have a package deal. You are a leader of that movement, aren't you? I'm one of them. And you have also urged NAACP members to not pay their dues anymore. Members can not directly elect, or I know that, members of the Board. It's difficult to have accountability. So the power we have is to speak up, speak up, because silos is a cent. And the second power we have is to stop funding the organization. And when the worst kept secrets of the NAACP is that not only is it a membership organization, but the members don't carry it. They are publicly supported organizations. They need to support the foundations and corporations, and the people are at large. And when those

money, the only money is get cut off. And they will get cut off, because they cannot stand the idea of a covenant with Louis Farrakhan, and the embracing of Louis Farrakhan. The NAACP is kind of straight to the role of Stauphish. Well, Mr. Greenberg, let me ask you about this, we've been taking over the NAACP. He has actually increased membership from about half a million to about 650,000. That's true. That is not true? No, it's not. At the same time, I gather his contributions have gone down, setting aside whether I'm right or Mr. Myers is right. Do you think that this is going to really undermine the financial stability of the NAACP? Or the general model? Well, I can't imagine any of the great national foundations, corporations or philanthropists, or even middle income or modest contributors contributing to the same extent they did in the past. It's just inconceivable. You know, this embracing of Farrakhan, because he has drug programs in the ghetto, was like embracing the Ku Klux Klan, because it cleans the litter in the highways in South Carolina. To me, it's the same thing. It makes absolutely no sense. Mr.

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Greenberg was raised. It was really offensive to me. When I look at all the new shows on Sunday have all white holes, that's offensive. When I walk through an airport and see our brake lead and robots and Donaldson and wheels to this, the best America has to offer, and that is in fact our supremacy. Now we have a show on institutionalized racism at the NAACP. This is a show. Reverend Jackson, let me end this. What do you think? Where do you think the NAACP is headed? I hope the organization is successful in helping to reduce violence, broadening the base of dialogue, even the convinced people who have gone violent route, not to go that route. When the convinced people who may be into an anti-Semitic inclination to turn them around, there's an organization have the power to redeem, that's a true measure of an organization. Can it redeem people?

Can it revive? Can it renew people? I certainly hope that these kind of veil threats and the kind of unstated hope that the NAACP would go out of business on this basis. I hope that does not happen. Reverend Jackson, do you think the NAACP can survive and flourish without white American and American Jewish support and membership? Well, I was certain the hope that African Americans would see the value of the organization, but more than that, I would hope that the right thinking whites would not try to be so paternalistic, as to impose upon their organization, or how it tries to reduce anxiety, anger and violence in black America. Corporate America is not dealing with that issue of dialogue. The government is not doing it. So why can't the organization, that this was not a commitment to the community? Thank you. Let me try to Mr. Myers now. Mr. Myers, let me ask you one final question. We only have a couple of minutes. Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been suggesting that if Lewis Farrakhan would renounce anti-Semitic statements, that then all would be well.

Do you think that's the way to close this gap? Lewis Farrakhan's doctrine is not just anti-Semitism, it's anti-homosexuals and lesbian unions. It's also anti-white. The doctrine of the nation, Islam, is one of black supremacy, black separation. The NAACP is opposed to that. The membership of the NAACP, by its constitution, is not open to black nationalism, black separatists. And Lewis Farrakhan claims they have a life membership in the NAACP. The NAACP officials were supposed Wednesday receipts, they were supposed to tear it up and send it back to them. They don't want black national black separatists in the NAACP. And we're going to go to the convention to make sure we keep and hold our NAACP open to all people regardless of their race and their color. Very quickly, Mr. Greenberg, do you see any way to close this gap? Well I think the association has to return to the days that made it great when it was an interracial, ecumenical movement included people of all different kinds of groups. That's when it had its greatest achievements. And it goes down the path of SNCC and core and the Panthers and Marcus Garvey and the Communist

Party. It'll end up the way they ended up. Mr. Sharpton? I think we need to play the game by one set of rules. If Mandela was right to meet with Mr. Clerk Anne Boudelase, if Mr. Dinkins was right to meet with people that called him murderer and Crown Heights, people that marched across the Brooklyn Bridge saying every Jew in 22, and we were right in business when there was a racial murder to meet with people that spit at us and called us niggas, then it's shocking to meet the same people that praised those acts would tell us not to meet with somebody that they find a fence. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Myers and Reverend Jackson, thanks for being with us, Jim. Thank you. So to come on the news hour tonight, US Soccer, Shields and Gigo, and a Father's Day essay. Now the World Cup of Soccer, it began this afternoon in Chicago, President Clinton, the leaders of Germany and Bolivia, 60,000 fans in the stadium, and 2 billion television viewers around the world watched as Germany beat Bolivia one to nothing.

Despite the intense international interest in the 52 World Cup games, Soccer is not that big a deal here in the United States. Lee Hockberg of Oregon Public Broadcasting Reports on professional Soccer's efforts to change that. These are giddy, exciting days at the Los Angeles offices of World Cup USA. There's month-long extravaganza has come to the US. Ticket sales were brisk earlier this month for an exhibition warm-up to the cup. The US team playing the Mexicans at the Rose Bowl, World Cup's promotional message seemed to be catching that Soccer has become as American as American Gothic. But if you looked closely at the 91,000 plus that jammed the stadium for the game, you wouldn't find a cross-section of America, an estimated 80,000 of them were Hispanic Americans, or

Mexicans coming across the US border to cheer for Mexico. While it's practically a religion in Europe and Latin nations, Soccer as a spectator sport just hasn't caught on in the US. It's the field for the game and it's the spirit and it's the soul of the game that matters and it's the passion for the game and they're the things that somehow seem to be missing. It's not that Americans don't like Soccer. The Soccer Industry Council, a coalition of Soccer Equipment suppliers promoting US Soccer, says 16 million Americans played the game last year because it's less violent than football and cheaper to play, schools have adopted the game. It's now the nation's number two participatory sport among children 12 and under behind

only basketball. It's a precious sport, I mean there's no time out, it's non-stop, it's kind of funny. But Soccer never has been a profitable spectator sport in this country. In the 1970s, the North American Soccer League brought in top international stars. Then indoor Soccer tried laser light shows and smaller fields. American audiences yawned at both. Sports writer Frank DeFord. We have a lot of people who swim, but you can't get them to go watch swimmers. We have a lot of people who jog, but track and feel is dying in this country. So there's absolutely no connection whatsoever that I can see between spectator sports and participant sports. It's two entirely different things. Alan Rothenberg believes the thrill of having World Cup Games on home turf will turn America's Soccer enthusiasts into paying fans. As chairman of the World Cup Organizing Committee, Rothenberg notes that nearly all 52 World Cup Games and nine American cities are sellouts with three and a half million tickets

sold. Several of America's top companies have purchased sponsorships at $20 million apiece and they're proudly linking their products to the game. It's going to be as exciting a spectacle I think as the American public has ever had the great opportunity to visit. But despite the thrills of this game, Rothenberg's real challenge lies beyond the World Cup turning. Soccer's world governing body agreed to stage Cup Games in the U.S. only if Rothenberg creates a new professional league here. His 12-team Major League Soccer is slated to begin play next spring. We've got a whole generation of people who've grown up with the game.

Now you have the biggest single sport event in the world, the World Cup coming to United States. That's capturing everybody's attention and we're going to follow that next year with Major League Soccer. It was clear that there's a spectator basis as not that some people have analogized it through softball wherever they like to play it, but nobody's been in nickel to watch it. What Alan Rothenberg and his committee has done with the World Cup has been magnificent, but that doesn't relate anyway whatsoever to the success of Soccer once the World Cup leaves town. Many sports observers believe after the hoopla of the Cup dies down, American Soccer Interest will do the same. That's a wonderful event, it's like Les Misarab coming to your town or the ice capades, but once it goes, I don't think there'll be any footprints left at all in the sand. The just is not to be the place for Soccer in our sporting calendar. We just don't have a gap for it. I'd love to say we do, but I don't see that we have. U.S. sees John Callahan argues that Soccer faces too much competition from pro baseball,

football, and basketball. Arizona businessman Dewey Shotty found exactly that when he launched a season ticket sales drive for a potential Major League Soccer franchise in Phoenix. It came during the spring we had the Phoenix Suns going, making a wonderful race for the day and it was a lot of media attention, it was virtually impossible to get media attention on it. It was also difficult even from the Soccer standpoint because we were not a World Cup venue, so the media wasn't really covering the World Cup and Soccer in general. The fledgling League asked potential teams to sell 10,000 season tickets. Arizona fans bought only 700. If we're one of the 12 cities that send in the most $75 refundable ticket deposits, we can help our town get a Major League Soccer team. The League trumpets its sales in Columbus, Ohio, where TV commercials helped sell 13,000 season tickets. World Cup executive vice president Sunil Galotti says smaller cities may be lucrative pro soccer markets.

I think you have to play in New York and you have to play in Los Angeles and I think we'll be there. But I think we'll see as a mix of those major media markets and then some of the cities where maybe soccer is going to be the new sport, the big sport in town. Always become a legend in his 18-year career, Marathana is a question mark for this World Cup. Well, will he show? The new League hopes to reach new television audiences as well. It has signed contracts with the Sports Network, ESPN, and with ABC to televised 36 games in its inaugural season. Soccer does well on European TV, with there are a few competing sports, but ratings here historically have been on par with beach volleyball. The networks think new enthusiasm for the game will lure new viewers and they believe they've overcome a problem with televising soccer, that there are no logical breaks in the action to place commercials. We've come up with a unique plan to superimpose the logos from our four main gold sponsors, superimpose their image next to the clock during the broadcast, during the game action.

That will eliminate the need for commercial interruptions, and the network slope enhance the telecast's appeal. And in a more hands-on effort to increase soccer's reach, World Cup USA and the Adidas Corporation have introduced the game to inner city neighborhoods where it's rarely played, like Los Angeles' Nickerson Gardens. We had no idea what to expect. Are these kids going to even come out and kick a ball round? Are they just going to sit on the sideline and take a look at this and say, well, what's going on here? At a cost of $3 million, soccer fields were installed in inner city neighborhoods in each of the nine American cities hosting World Cup and thousands of uniforms and soccer balls were donated. The kids picked up on it right away. They became excited. They had a little bit of success. And once they had success, we think we've planted a seed that will keep growing. And as in the case of the Rose Bowl exhibition with Mexico, the league hopes to fill stadiums with the increasing number of foreign-born Americans. Phoenix's Dewey Shoddy targeted Hispanics with this TV ad. We have 19% of the Hispanic market population is Hispanic and Phoenix about 22 in the

whole state of Arizona. And it's a market that hasn't even been touched. And with growing Hispanic populations, I think the time has really come. And after the U.S.-Mexico exhibition at the Rose Bowl, some Hispanic fans said target marketing will get them to the games only if the quality of the soccer is world-class and the prices affordable. If you want to make it work, it has to be at a price that we can afford. And the soccer fans, most of the all of us, are not that rich. We're all picking incomes. Everybody's on a fixed income. So, I mean, you've got to make it affordable for all the fans to go. If limits from what they can expect from ethnic Americans alone, U.S. soccer chiefs are trying to change the game, to make it more attractive to all Americans. I think in general, American sports audiences want the final result, and that means either a goal or a near goal or a near miss. We're actually trying bigger goals, which in parts of the world is considered heresy. But that obviously would increase goal scoring.

American audience and the American kids a little bit different. He needs to be spoken too differently. And soccer sponsors are doing what they can to Americanize the game. Adidas launched an ad campaign to imbue U.S. soccer stars with the same brash persona that's become popular in other sports. This commercial, goalie, Tony Miola, surrenders a goal to an opponent wearing an Adidas shoe. This shoe sucks. He walks out of the goal, looks into the cameras, says this shoe sucks. Kids pick up on the honesty from it, because Tony's got an attitude that they have about every day life. American attitude is very, very much so, and it's working for us. Trash talk, multicultural marketing, rules changes. All part of the plan to make the world's game an economic goldmine in the U.S. As Americans fill the stadiums this month to see soccer's best, the question is whether they'll come back after the world has gone away. Now some Friday night political analysis by Shields Angie Goz, syndicated columnist Mark

Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul G. Goz, who is with us tonight from San Jose, California. Mark, healthcare reform, the Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee appeared to get their act together at least yesterday, they voted in mass. Is that a harbinger of things to come or what? It not saying it's a harbinger of things to come, but we saw yesterday the most powerful man in all of Washington. It turned out not to be Bill Clinton. It turned out not to be Speaker Tom Foley or Dan Rosten, Kelsky Assam, Gibbons, and to get part of George Mitchell. It turned out to be Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich, the Republican House Whip, had obviously sent the word to his colleagues that there would be no cooperation and no participation in a collaboration in the committee. In any way, to support a amendment that would make the bill more palatable and passable on the House floor, so the Republicans on mass were opposing amendments even sponsored by an advocated by Republican members.

And that unified that would have made it more attractive to make it more attractive for Republicans. For other Republicans to vote for, easier on business, easier on employer mandates. So in that sense, the Democrats came together in this rare burst of unity. And as late as this afternoon, it was showing signs of at least lasting through the weekend. At least lasting through the weekend. What do you think? You read at the same way, Paul? Well, I've never heard Mark Be so generous to Newt Gingrich before, and I'm not sure he would appreciate the compliment. Well, no, I think there's no question that Newt Gingrich has a dilemma. He has to try to deal with a very partisan strategy that the Democrats are operating with, trying to get a partisan bill that won't have many Republican votes to the floor of the House. And he's going to say, he's saying, in committee should we improve a bill that we're going to try to defeat on the House? So it's a very difficult dilemma for a minority leader. I don't think this is a harbinger, though, that in fact, it's going to be clear sailing

on the House, because in fact, remember the BTU tax, which a lot of House members voted for in the economic bill, will BTU's become a verb in this town when it comes to the health bill, because the House members and Democrats are saying, we're not going to be BTU'd again voting for something like an employer mandate on health care if the Senate is not going to pass it to. So they're waiting. It's going to be a very tough vote on the House of the floor if they can get through the Ways and Means Committee. Paul, Senator Phil Graham from Texas, said the other day yesterday to be exact that he thought the palm paraphrase in here, but he thought it might be good politics for the Republicans to obstruct, to cause a vote not to be taken on health care reform and go run on that in these midterm elections. You agree with that? Well, more and more, I hear that's what a lot of Republicans are saying. They're looking at the poll numbers for the Clinton health care plan, and they're now a majority in favor are posed to it rather, about 50%.

They're looking at another poll number, which shows that about 57%, 58% of the public doesn't want to do it necessarily this year. They're willing to wait. What's the rush, they say? So a lot of Republicans are sitting back and saying, well, we don't want to peer obstructionists, but rather than sign on to a bill we oppose, that has employer mandates, that has price controls, that has things we can't support in principle. Maybe the best thing is to have an election, because after all, in the 92 campaign, while the president ran on health care, in a general sense, he really didn't run on things like a payroll tax, he didn't run on price controls, he didn't run on what a lot of the things are trying to promote now. But Mark, that's a change, I mean, is it not, if the poll numbers are correct, because earlier the poll numbers said, well, they may disagree with the president on the details, but everybody wanted health care reform, that's a change now, right? Yeah, it is a change, I'm still not sure from Paul's answer, whether he wants the Republicans to run his total obstructionist in 1994, or is advising that whether he wants to run

on it, I think this is a problem, the way it is going to be drawn, and will it be that the Republicans are in favor of the status quo, no change, no improvement. And they're probably saying, no, no, we're not for that. And Paul's absolutely right, the numbers he quotes are right from the Wall Street Journal NBC poll, which is a terrific poll, but that same poll shows that the most popular form of financing, the even more popular among Republicans in the general electorate of financing it, is employer mandates. And that the overriding concern of people, the change they want to make, is that everybody, irrespective of who they are, where they come from, is guaranteed coverage. So those remain the two real mandates from the electorate, that Paul is right, that the Clinton plan, which was a lot more popular, and is a lot more popular, even today, Jim, tested without the president's name on it. If you ask people in 1990, in the spring of 1984, what about this plan that will provide universal coverage, that will guarantee that employers provide for those who can't, that

with their government, will step in when there's an inability to pay for it, that in described what the president essentially has proposed, it is a lot more popular, in fact, in one Northeastern Congressional District, just this week, it came back with 75% approval, you put the president's name on it and fell to 40. And what does that tell you? Well, it tells me that the president himself is less popular than his proposals, it was always set of Ronald Reagan, it was just the opposite, that Ronald Reagan was more popular than the ideas he was advancing. Yeah. Because you think that accounts for the fact that both the president and Mrs. Clinton have been saying increasingly, well, we're not hung up on our plan, we just want certain things, and in other words, they've almost said we're going to leave it to Congress. You read it that way, Paul, that they are, they're not a pride of ownership or a pride of authorship is no longer a Clinton problem. Well, not really, Jim, I think that in fact, they are holding pretty firm to a couple of things that are very contentious and in which there is no consensus.

And the biggest one is the employer mandate. They're now talking about this delay putting a mandate in three or four years from now through something called a hard trigger, and they might settle for that, but that's still a mandate. And that's going to be, that's the big stickler here, because for a lot of Republicans it represents a new federal entitlement. It represents the government getting in and running the healthcare plan, the healthcare program. That's what they don't want to sign on to. And just to take another crack at Mark's point before, if, rather than sign on to a plan like that, I would recommend that the Republicans do take it to the voters, and if they have to filibuster, so be it, and we'd have a real election fight over something that mattered. And who'd win that one, Mark? I think that the argument is on the President's side. I don't think you want to take a President on an issue that he ran on two years earlier and that the minority party in the Congress is preventing a vote on. All right?

I mean, this is not a question. The President has the most straightforward arguments. Let's have an up or down vote. That's all I'm asking. I want an up or down vote in the Congress, and instead of saying you don't want to build a go to the floor that people can even vote on, you don't want to improve it so it's better. Is that a better chance? What kind of legislative approach is that? That's neolism. That's puttin' sand in a gasoline tank, Mr. Gingrich. You're not that kind of the fellow-newt. Yes, Paul. If the issue was framed like that, I agree. That's not the way to run it if I were Republican. But the point is, in the Senate, you can offer amendments. You can offer 700 amendments. In fact, a Democrat told me that that would probably be the Republican strategy. You offer a couple of hundred amendments to improve the bill and each of them sounds plausible. So I'm not so sure it's a simple choice between the Clinton bill or the status quo or the Clinton bill. All I do think of President Clinton's proposal this week on welfare reform. I was struck by the reaction to it, because if you contrast the reaction to this proposal from the one that they made, the reaction that was made to, say, health care last year

or the budget last year. It was a lot more critical. He really is gettin' beaten up from both the Liberals in his party and from the Republicans. He got virtually no Republican support, contrary to health care where there was kind of a cautious approval. This time, and I think that it demonstrates that he really didn't meet the test he said in the campaign, which was, are we gonna end welfare as we know it? He's really fallen short of that, and he's gone further than a lot of other presidents have in the past, but he created these greater expectations in the campaign, and it was a terrific issue for him, whatever they felt behind in a state. They ran an ad saying, and welfare as we know it. I think he's fallen short with his proposal. Mark? Paul is right, and that it is not the proposal that was discussed in the campaign. Bill Clinton, however, is honoring a pledge he made in the campaign of 1992. He is pushing the ball up the hill. It's a fight up the hill. There's no question about it.

Is there enough money? No. Would conservatives support enough money that you really need? No. I think it's a good life. They're, because really abolish and change welfare as we know it would require a hell of a lot of money. Most people don't like welfare in large part, because they think we're using spending money that we shouldn't be spending in the first place. If you went to them and say, okay, we're really gonna spend a lot more money to abolish it. I think it would be singularly unpopular. Paul is right that there is criticism on the left of the Democratic Party for this, especially among those members of Congress who are, who do come from immigrant families, because the idea of legal aliens being used as one form of subsidizing. That is, benefits from legal aliens being used as one form of subsidizing. But I do think, quite frankly, that in this case, that we're talking about a political issue, probably more than a substantive issue. This has been a great Republican issue. Ronald Reagan ran against the welfare queen and designer jeans who had 56 IDs and was driving him with Sadie's convertible, he mentioned, I remember in the Florida primary in 1976, the big buck who went in and bought vodka with food stamps.

That was before he was sanitized his language. And I think this really is a case where Bill Clinton is moving, adroitly politically, to neutralize an issue that had been an advantage to Republicans. Yeah. Do you agree, Paul, that is it still that kind of issue, can our politician use it the way Ronald Reagan did that I mean, in a way, Bill Clinton is using it the way Ronald Reagan did. I mean, he's not a Republican, but he's used it very effectively, it worked in 1992, and I think you can, you know, the Republicans think there's some cynical politics going on here now, because he made that promise in the campaign. And here we are, 18 minutes into his term before he proposes the bill just about a few months before an election, and there's really no intention of trying to pass the bill this year. There's no support for a diggap heart set as much this week. So in a way he's using it as a political issue this year, so Democratic candidates can say, look, here is our welfare bill.

Okay. And here is the end of our time. Paul, Mark, thank you. Jim, thanks. Again, the major story of this Friday was Los Angeles police murder charges against former football star O.J. Simpson. Jeffrey K has more from Los Angeles. Simpson was declared a fugitive today after he disappeared. The ex-football star was scheduled to surrender this morning for booking and arraignment, but he failed to keep an appointment with police at a late afternoon press conference a friend, Robert Kardashian, read an ominous letter written by Simpson, suggesting he might have committed suicide. First, everyone understand I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her, always have, and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much.

I think of my life and feel I've done most of the right things. So why do I end up like this? I can't go on, no matter what the outcome, people will look and point. I can't take that. I can't subject my children to that. This way they can move on and go on with their lives. Please, if I've done anything worthwhile in my life, let my kids live in peace from you, the press. I've had a good life. I'm proud of how I lived. My mama taught me to do unto others. I treated people the way I wanted to be treated. I've always tried to be up and helpful.

So why is this happening? I'm sorry for the Goldman family. I know how much it hurts. Nicole and I had a good life together. All this press talk about a rocky relationship was no more than that than, I'm sorry, was no more than whatever long-term relationship experiences. All her friends will confirm that I have been totally loving and understanding of what she's been going through. At times, I have felt like a battered husband or boyfriend. But I loved her. Make that clear to everyone. And I would take whatever it took to make it work. Don't feel sorry for me. I've had a great life, great friends.

Please think of the real O.J. and not this lost person. Thanks for making my life special. I hope I help yours. Peace and love, O.J. At the same press conference, Simpson's lawyer, Robert Shapiro, said Simpson has been depressed and under the care of doctors. Shapiro said he had made arrangements for police officers to arrest Simpson at a private home this morning. He said he and four doctors were in the house with Simpson waiting for officers. Shapiro stated that Simpson and a friend, Al Cowlings, were in a separate room together. And when police arrived and went to the room where Simpson was last seen, Simpson and Al Cowlings had disappeared. LA District Attorney Gil Goss said earlier authorities were also looking for cowlings who was a former teammate of Simpson. The murders occurred in West Los Angeles late Sunday night,

killed with a football star's ex-wife, 35-year-old Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman, a 25-year-old waiter at a local restaurant when Nicole and others had eaten the evening the murders took place. Authorities were at a loss to explain how Simpson got away. The expert ball star was last seen publicly attending his ex-wife's funeral yesterday. The couple have two children, age nine and six. The Simpsons were divorced in 1992 following a seven-year marriage by all accounts it was stormy and violent. In 1989, Simpson pleaded no contest to a charge of spousal battery. This afternoon at his press conference, Simpson's attorney pleaded with his client to turn himself in. And that's the latest from Los Angeles on the OJ Simpson story. Good night, Margaret. Good night, Jim. That's it for the news hour tonight. We'll see you Monday evening. I'm Margaret Warner. Good night.

Major funding for the McNeil-Lera news hour has been provided by PepsiCo. PepsiCo. And by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, ADM supermarket to the world. And by New York life, yet another example of New York life's wise investment philosophy. And by the corporation for public broadcasting and by the annual financial support from viewers like you. This is PBS.