At Week's End; 527; AWE #527 New Mexico Primary

You You Not since the Great Depression

as a nation faced such troubling problems or such deep -seated doubts about its future, join us next for a look at the presidential election of 1992. America has won the Cold War many say yet only at the price of our own domestic peace and only to confront an uncertain new world of economic competition and unprecedented environmental challenges. From the crisis in health care to the failures of education, from hard economic times to the hard faces of racism suffering and violence, the U .S. seems to many of its citizens sadly mocked by its grand old promise to be a land of liberty and justice for all. At this time of unprecedented trials, we face an unparalleled alienation of Americans from the political system, a profound feeling of exclusion, resentment, powerlessness in the very democracy in which we depend for leadership and security. To

many, the power and corruption of money in American politics seems pervasive, millions see it by partisan regime of greed and special interest in Washington and the tyranny of money especially in running for office. Who are this year's presidential candidates to deal with these problems? Skeptics say an incumbent president who many see not only as a failure in domestic policy but also sadly out of touch with the human reality of politics. A democratic challenger who has won the nomination with more money and traditional party support than his rivals, but over whom a hover nagging doubts about character and record. And finally, a billionaire buccaneer businessman with appealing bluntness and irreverence for the old politics, yet with still serious questions about exactly who he is and what he stands for. Will any of them inspire the more than customary low voter turnout? 1992 historians may well call it the year of the test, a test of the very integrity and

vitality of American democracy. Joining me now are three guests to the distinguishing to discuss the important issues of this presidential year. John Latuzio is an Elemogordo businessman who is New Mexico State Chairman of the Republican Party. Barbara Ortigal is petition coordinator for the New Mexico Parole for President Committee. And John Pound as Santa Fe Attorney is finance chairman of the Bill Clinton presidential campaign in New Mexico. Welcome to all of you. I don't have to tell you that there is a broad and the land, a rather severe disillusionment among voters about the very working reality of this system. The Washington Post has published last week a poll by a Republican pollster, John Latuzio, Linda DeValle, who says 73 % of those polls think our political system, quote, is broken, run by insiders who are incapable of solving our problems. How does the State Chairman of the Republican Party respond to that kind of disillusionment? Well, it bothers

me that those polling numbers reflect that right now. However, I would point out that I don't believe we're the skeptics that bill to America. I think it's still a great country, a land of great opportunity. I think we're going to have a very interesting election this time. I expect to see George Bush climbing the polls from here. And I'm encouraged by this type of program and this much interest in politics right now in the fact that we will have more people participating come November. Are you prepared as Republican State Chairman? Let me play devil's advocate here to defend for the people of New Mexico, the record of the Reagan and Bush years, 12 years of growing poverty for this state of a growing class division between rich and poor. Of all sorts of problems from health care to education, all through our society. It's really your analysis. Well, that's what many, many feel that I'm very confident in defending the Reagan, Bush, Europe. I remember the years just prior to that. I'm a small businessman. I've been in business in the state for

30 years. And I remember the two Democrat administrations in Washington when the Democrats owned all three branches of the government and what those things were like. I remember our military not having enough money to fly their airplanes military on food stamps with a world threat that said that maybe someday we would be facing the communist threat on our own shores to see that all gone. Because of the commitment of the Reagan Bush administration. John Pound, let me, let me turn to you and again play the devil's advocate here. There are millions of Americans who do blame the Reagan Bush years for their present plight. And at the same time hold responsible democratically controlled Congress, democratic politicians, who may see, I think, often as part of the problem, not really the loyal opposition, but almost co -conspirators in this general mess that we're in in Washington. How do you, as a, as a Democrat, respond to that? I think that our party has gone through a period where

we've been labeled as tax and spend liberal Democrats. And I think to a degree we brought that on ourselves. And I think that's what Bill Clinton starting several years ago started to preach two Democrats. He basically started going around the country with the Democratic Leadership Council which he formed pointing out to Democrats that we've strayed away from mainstream thought in the United States. We've got to come back, we've got to inject common sense into our party and make ourselves more palatable to the average voter. It's remarkable to me the success he's had. I mean, when you think about it, here is Clinton now essentially the nominee of the Democratic Party. And so to answer your question, Roger, I think that the Democrats do have to take part of the blame. But the hope for improvement now lies with the Democratic Party and particularly with this candidate we have in the Governor Clinton department. This

candidate though, as you will know, brings with him some, some extraordinary baggage. He may be an early nominee for your party. But all these allegations, some matters of character. And I'm not talking about the old questions of infidelity or the draft at marijuana, but questions of his record as Governor of Arkansas. Questions of his very veracity as a person and as a political leader. Isn't this going to wound you deeply even before the general election campaign gets started? No, it will not. And the extent to which it had any kind of an injury worked on the party at all, it's in the past. I'm convinced of that because it's false. You don't think these guys in the Republican side are going to take advantage of that in the fall? They'll bring it up. They'll try to bring it up as it'll be old news by then because it's non -news. It's not true. Bill Clinton is a man of high moral character. And you know, the fact that he's gone through this mill, they've put him through which Mr. Perot hasn't even started yet. They'll throw that at him pretty quickly. I think is the best testimony of all to the strength of his character and his good humor.

His record as Governor of Arkansas is one of the most remarkable successful governor's innovative governors in the country. I'll tell you something. I think we have the most exciting candidate for president that my party has fielded since 1960. And I'm just, I can hardly wait to get going on this campaign for the country to get to know Bill Clinton. Well, we've got a confident Republican chairman. We've got an excited supporter of Clinton here in Barbara Ortegaul. You've got your own excitement out there. A third candidate in this race, many are calling it the wild card, the Joker in the deck, Ross Perot. Millions of Americans are asking, who is he? He seems to be saying mainly in his campaign, I'm not them. I'm not George Bush. I'm not Bill Clinton. Who exactly is Ross Perot? And what does he stand for? I have to tell you why he speaks to me first. He speaks to what I feel is wrong with the country that we are not in control. Nobody in Washington is really listening to any of us.

I've watched and I'm so sick and tired of the finger pointing. It's them, it's them. And I think I'll explain it. I had a grandson born last week in Santa Fe. And I want 20 years from now, I want this little boy to say, my grandma spoke up against what was destroying this country. I don't think the Democrats or the Republicans as people are involved. It's what they've sold out to. We don't run this country anymore. We have been bought by special interest group, the political action committees, the foreign interests, the big money that's poured into our campaign. The one thing about in the campaign that we're doing now, it always impresses me the people who bring their five bucks to get their skin in the game. This is the contribution that Perot himself put into the headquarters and they put

their five bucks to put the skin in the game. And people are saying to me, their Democrats are Republicans, their independents, they've never voted, they quit voting, their liberals are conservatives, their middle of the road, and they're all saying the same thing. I don't know if he's the answer, but he has an answer. But with all due respect, and I take your points about money and the corruption of money in American politics. And I think there's any argument about that at all. You represent a candidate who is pledging to bring $100 million to this campaign, who probably wouldn't be remotely near this process if he weren't a billionaire himself and prominent because of the money he's made, some of which has been made through federal largesse. A man who literally may end up not with the making of the presidency, but the buying of the presidency. But we'll know who paid for it. Well, we'll know that he paid for it himself. But we'll know. Is that necessarily a virtue over the president? I don't know, but right now, I don't know who owns the White House. I don't know who owns the Senate. I don't know who owns the Congress. I just know that the minute our elected officials cross the belt line into Washington, they are a part of a

seductive environment of money, of big money, and then they forget us. And, you know, I could sit here and bill after bill after bill, a thing that need to be tended to two, three, ten, fifteen years. We have no crime legislation. We have not addressed the inner city problem. And everybody's saying, well, it's those guys. No, it's those guys. And we say, well, wait a minute. They are us, still pogo. Where's Perot was getting to run because he has that money. Isn't that an irony in this rate? John Latuzia, let me ask you, you're a businessman from a New Mexico, a small New Mexico city. The Republican Party used to represent in the eyes of many Americans, the small businessman, the small guy out there. What you're hearing from Barbara and people like her, I think, a lot in America, is that that's no longer the case. What's happened in Washington? Do you see that transformation? We certainly are still the party of business. Look at the NFIB ratings. Look at the just released ACI ratings that came out yesterday in New Mexico. And you will find that Republicans support business issues. I think that what we're caught up in here

is some class warfare that's not clearly defined. I think that when we talk about money, we talk about money as an evil. I'm a small businessman. I have great admiration for what Ross Perot has been able to do in the business world. And I think what we need to talk about more is not how to penalize a rich, but how to create more wealth in our country. An interesting point to me when you pull poor people is that they all want their children to be rich. I want my children to be rich. This is the land of opportunity. This is the land of opportunity where that can happen. And I do think we represent those interests and not in a negative fashion. I think we represent the small business owner like myself, the small shop, the entrepreneur that takes his hard -earned money, invests it and creates jobs for the country. You're absolutely right. It isn't money that's the root of all evil. I think the philosophy tells us it's the love of money or it's the abuse and power of money. But how do you answer the

increasing charge that these last 12 years have been years in which that power has been exercised on behalf of only a very few. That the top 1 % have grown in wealth while Americans have become generally poorer. That people are left out of the political system because of the abuse and misuse of money and politics. You guys have been in the White House now for 12 years. And anyone would tell you in politics that the responsibility for that deficit, for the financial problems of this country, rests with the Congress. I think we're just going to say with the Democrats. With the Democrats, the Democrats have run the Congress for all but two years of the Eisenhower administration since Roosevelt. You know, John, he does have a point and Bill Clinton, as you mentioned with the Democratic leadership group, is a member of that Democratic establishment, card carrying member. He's portrayed himself to some extent as an outsider but he's still very much, I think we both know,

within the mainstream tradition of the Democratic Party. How do you guys avoid responsibility, your rightful responsibility for the mess we're in and why is Bill Clinton going to make any real difference? Clinton, he is an insider and he's not an insider. He certainly is a mainstream Democrat. I agree with that. He's the governor of Arkansas. He's not within the beltway. He's not tainted by that. He, as I say, has pointed out that we need to get our ship of state in order. I think the real problem that we're facing right now that's oversimplified, I admit this, but I still think there's something to it. We have a history of dealing with concrete problems and we, as a nation, as a national community, I think we historically rally to deal with those problems. Right now, what I think we're facing is sort of a crisis of faith, a feeling of hopelessness around the country. It's almost the way I think it must have

felt to live in pre -revolutionary Paris. The realization seems to be settling in in millions of people. That's a pretty ominous analogy for you. Well, but I mean it. I think we're seeing little warning signs of this. We've had 12 years now of an economic philosophy in the administration in Washington that if we restructure the economy and the tax code to benefit the wealthiest in society, we create sort of a new aristocracy. They will share the wealth with the rest of us and employ the unemployed, et cetera, sort of a futile approach, if you will, to economics. Obviously it hasn't worked. And for the first time in American history, I think, we're seeing signs of people understanding that perhaps the door is being closed for them and their children forever. But we all do respect again. The Democratic Congress was right on board with much of what the Reagan and Bush administration has proposed. They've been part of this deficit problem, which Mr. Perot talks about as being such an awful weight on future generations.

I'm just wondering how this divided government can avoid responsibility for being what it's been. I think the only intelligent response to that is to say that you're right. It's to say that the blame you want to use that word for the predicament we're in has to be shouldered in part by everybody, by voters, by those who were elected, by Republicans, by Democrats, by those who didn't speak up strongly enough, including Mr. Perot. So I think what we do now, rather than point fingers at each other, Barbara, as you were saying, is to say, here we are now. Where do we go from here? How do we improve the situation? When you look at the candidates and say, who seems to have the best program? Who most honestly says, this is no good where we are now, and who apparently has the best ability to take us where we need to go? Fair statement, I think, of a bipartisan predicament that both these old parties are in, but Barbara, is your guy, the guy to lead us out of the wilderness? I mean, he's already, he's coming under increasing attack for some of

his past business dealings, turns out he had a very close relationship with Nixon White House. I was there on that NSC staff. I know he was frequently in to see the president. He's hardly an outsider of rather practiced insider. Is this campaign as spontaneous, as grassroots, as honest as it seems on the outside? I'm sure I can't answer that. I can only tell you how it affected me. I was a Nixon supporter. I left the party in 75. I think we've all been disillusioned. We all believed. I think I personally feel that I've advocated my responsibilities. I've not been happy with the last three presidential candidates. Maybe I didn't work hard enough, and an awful lot of us stopped voting. An awful lot of us says, what does it matter? Less than 45 percent nationwide. I'm going to tell you one thing, and I'm going to make this my drum that I'm going to stand up on. Never before has one vote

been more important than this year. You stop and think about it. Get your sheets out and get all the electoral votes and give this state over here and this state over here. I've five votes in New Mexico. All of a sudden are very important. And if I could say anything to everybody watching, I don't care. Republican, Democrat, Independent, have never voted. If I could quit voting, I can say, please, this is the year that it's going to come. And I don't know if Mr. Pro is the answer. I don't know the man. I only know of him. But I know he offers a possible alternative to this dilemma. You know, she points out a very interesting possibility here, and that is that our votes, either in the House of Representatives or in the Electoral College, may indeed be more important than ever. Are you worried about a deadlock, John Latuzio? You think this election could be so close, split three ways? I don't think so. I think that's a possibility, but I think it's a remote possibility.

What happened, John Pound, if we get into a democratically controlled House of Representatives and Bill Clinton finishes second or third in the popular vote, and we get a brokered presidency here? That's a kind of scary constitutional outcome. It would test everyone's adherence to the Constitution. It's not going to happen. I'll tell you something, not to pick a fight barber, but I strongly believe that as September comes around, the innate suspicion. The American people have about third party candidates, especially someone who effectively is trying to purchase the office, but someone who is not by virtue of his background prepared for this office is going to show itself, and I think we're going to have Bush versus Clinton in those last couple of months. I'll bet you a dinner that comes September. Mr. Perot is down in the single digits and willing down. I'll take you up on that, because Bill Clinton has raised a lot of money in this campaign, too, as we both know. Barbara, how would you respond to that? Okay, I was very, very upset when all of the

terror in Los Angeles to hear about a Republican fundraiser, where somebody could pay $53 ,000 to have their picture taken with my president. And I'm sorry, you may say Perot was buying the election, but he's not the only one. I just don't know who paid $53 ,000 for that picture. Just a few seconds left, do we all agree that money is a major problem? I think we'd all like to get money more or less, or the evil use of money, John Lattuzio, out of American politics, if we could. When you stack the money that's spent in politics up against what we're using the money to do, I still think it's a very small price to have a freely elected representative's government. Well, on that note, I'll say we'll have you all back in the fall when things will be a little more clear, and we hope the money hasn't taken us down the drain. Thank you all. Thank you, John Lattuzio, and Barbara Ortigal, and John Pound. And stay tuned for a conversation with Hank Truitt. Joining

me now for a special one -on -one conversation is Henry Truitt, one of America's most distinguished political and diplomatic correspondents. He's now a professor of journalism at the University of New Mexico. Hank, what do you make of this extraordinary year in American politics? We're already exhausted by the primary battles, and we've got a fresh three -way race ahead of us here. I wish I were back in it, Roger. I know what you mean. But it is fascinating. One of the most fascinating political years I've ever observed. I'm glad Perot's in this thing, even if he's out again before it begins to get serious, or you approach anything like finality, because I think he's adding some interest with the campaign. I'm guessing that he will not be a major factor in the campaign as it mirrors an end. I've been wrong before also. But I do believe, and one of your other earlier guests said that he didn't think Perot would be decisive in the campaign, and I agree, basically. But if he holds 10 or 15 or 18 percent of the popular vote, I think it's possible that the campaign will be

close enough that he couldn't backswitch it. So you think we're going to have a meltdown here in effect? Under scrutiny by the press. His private record, perhaps even his personal life? Yeah, he's a very volatile person individually. Most people who make $3 billion or whatever it is, are not really very nice people, and they don't like criticism, and if Perot can sustain his public persona through what's going to happen to him over the next several weeks, I think it'll be quite remarkable. Well, there's already some irritability there, and that's showing through, on the other hand, there is profound disillusionment out there in the American body politic. He's running ahead of Clinton in California, running ahead of the president, and Clinton in Texas. I'm wondering if we're not underestimating this phenomenon. The public is sick of conventional politics. I don't think there's any question about that. I think this week writing my hobby horse about the primaries, I think it goes on too long. I think it costs too much money. I think it reduces the candidates and

the media who are covering the campaign to picking it nits constantly, so that we're not really getting a real sense of issues strangely enough, instead of getting an explication of issues in the campaign, we're getting a large extent in consequential details. I like to see campaigns focus more tightly. And the tyranny of money is, in effect, working against democracy in this process. You're narrowing the field to those who can raise $15 or $20 million before they ever get out of the gate, and of course, Clinton was one of those, and he survived that democratic field. Ross Perot is $100 million, which he says he's willing to put into a political campaign. If he becomes actively involved, there's a lot of money. But I don't think it's enough to make the difference or a difference in the outcome of the campaign. He could make himself a competitor, because the democratic republicans are raising incredible amounts of money as well. How much did the president get from the dinner a few weeks ago? Nine million dollars or something like that. At a time when Los Angeles was still burning, but people like Barbara Ortigal and others, thousands of others in this state for one,

do take this candidacy very seriously. Indeed, they think they've got a potential winner here. What will be the reaction, Hank, in a country that re -elects, let's say, George Bush, when they thought they might have had a real insurrection going, when the Democrats thought for the first time in a long while they had a good candidate here? Isn't there going to be even deeper dissolution? I would think that's the case. I believe hope that the parole candidate brings out more people, makes it more of a genuine popular election. And if he drops out ahead of time, a lot of these people who are parole supporters may just throw up their hands and walk away from it. I like to see a lot of people voting. I think that's important. Even if our colleague William Buckley doesn't think just voting is good, he likes to see people being absolutely informed and just as happy if they don't vote. Well, he thinks there are so few who are informed that is those who share his opinions. Are we going to see a surge of reform out of this campaign? Some real serious attempt to control the power of money and politics, perhaps to reform the primary process, the party

process itself. You see this as a democratizing effect overall? My judgment would be that once the process is over, not a lot will change. The people who would have to affect the change, other people who have a lot of issues at stake in the current campaign. I don't think we will see major change. I think we may well see reform bills. Bills that are labeled as reform bills and so forth, but I would think the results are going to be fairly inconsequential before the process is over. Just a few seconds left. Anything that our colleagues in the media in the Fourth of State are going to learn out of this chasing experience one way or the other? Well, they've already learned that people don't really like what they're doing very much, but I don't think it's going to change how the media cover the campaign. You know Pac Journalism as well as I do. You cannot write a story for the Washington Post and not have your colleague from the New York Times trying to duplicate that story or to match that story as the phrase and the trade goes. I don't think it's going to change out of that. It's going to less the system itself has changed. So the PAC will be intact in journalism. The intact four years from now as it is today. Whatever happens in Washington. Exactly.

Thank you very much, Hank Truett. Come back and tell us what you think in the fall when things have heated up a little bit. And thank you for joining us for a week's end. I'm Roger Morris. Thank you very much. For a video cassette copy

of this program, send $29 .95 plus $3 for shipping and handling to, at Weeksend, K -N -M -E -T -V, 1130 University Boulevard Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87102, or call 1 -800 -328 -5663. Visa and MasterCard are accepted. Please indicate the date that program aired.